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.
At that meeting there was, not a turbulent, but a very quiet demonstration, by the National Socialist masses. They sang the German hymm. I might interpolate here that the German national anthem and the Austrian one had the same tune. The fact that this attracted unfavorable attention was obvious, since there were also member of the Austrian Government present.
On this occasion I would also like to refer to the announcement which attracted great attention at that time on the part of the Austrian police. In Teinfaltstrasse, where Leopold lived, plans had been found for a putsch. Leopold, who was recognized by all circles to be the leader of the illegal Nazi Party, was able to maintain a fairly big office at that time in Teinfaltstrasse, which was carefully watched by the police. However, the fact that it existed and that it was allowed to remain there, illustrates very clearly, I think, the very curious situation in Austria at that time. After these plans had been found, nothing else happened.
In 1938, after Seyss-Inquart had been appointed Minister of the Interior, when he visited various provincial towns there were demonstrations of joy, but nowhere did these assume turbulent dimensions, as far as I remember.
Q.You mentioned, just a while ago, the date of 12 February 1938, the date of the so-called Berchtesgaden agreement between Hitler and Schuschnigg. At that time, how did the national opposition in Austria regard this agreement? Was it regarded as--if I may put it this way-the beginning of the end, or as a logical consequence of the policy of July 1936?
A.We in Austria, who had no news of happenings on the Obersalzberg, had the feeling that it was the logical consequence of the policy of the agreement of 1936, and we harbored great hopes that finally, at last, Chancellor Schuschnigg would keep his promises to give the national part of the population the same rights as all the others.
Q.One of the measures which Schuschnigg took after the Berchtesgaden agreement was the announcement of a plebiscite that was to take place on 13 march 1938. What was the Austrian reaction to that announcement?
A.Well, I think you can say it was in the nature of a shock. Since 1930 no elections had taken place in Austria at all, as there were no electoral lists, or no election cards, and it was a puzzle for everyone as to how this election was to be carried out technically. Moreover, the question was put in such a way that one had either to choose the present authoritarian regime, or, by not recognizing Austria's independence get into conflict with the Austrian Constitution and so become liable to punishment. Wide circles of the Austrian population were very worried at that time. We ourselves considered the announcement of the plebiscite to be to our disadvantage, because, as I have already said, we wanted a peaceful and evolutionary development. And now, the wide masses of the people had lost their last remnant of hope and seemed inclined to answer with the same methods which the Government was apparently using. One could only believe that this plebiscite was not honestly meant, but that it was a political maneuver. That was the opinion of the people.
Q.Concerning the problems which Schuschnigg's plebiscite represented for the Austrians, my Exhibit 74, in Book 2-C, on page 89, contains an article by Staatsrat Jury, in the Wiener Nachrichten, dated 11 March 1938.
Now, witness, were there disturbances in Austria at that time?
A.No. The people were very restless and in despair, but you can't really talk of disturbances. If I remember correctly, on the 10th of March demonstrations developed in the provinces, but they all took a calm course. You can't talk of disturbances.
Q.I would now like to come briefly to the events of the 11th of March 1938. The remarks made by the former Gauleiter Rainer in Prosecution Exhibit 32 in Book 2, on page 141 of the English, one may be inclined to draw the conclusion that the actual seizure of power in Austria--that is, the taking over of the public posts in the various provinces and in Vienna-had taken place long before a federal government had been formed under Seyss-Inquart.
What can you say about that from your Own observations?
A.I was in Vienna myself at that time and I watched the events. On the 11th of March, in the course of the morning, columns of cars drove through the city making propaganda for the election. There was a lot of paper, but the people did not take part. Only at the moment when the Chancellor announced that the plebiscite was to be abandoned did the masses go out into the streets, and there were great demonstrations of joy, because this plebiscite which had been announced was not at all to the taste of the people. One could see the great relief that was felt. Then, in the late afternoon, there were major demonstrations in the center of Vienna. There was fraternization between the people and the police, for instance, and you could see slogans such as, for instance, "the Anschluss must take place", which were announced. In the provinces--that is, in the capitals of the provinces--similar demonstrations developed. I myself then heard repeatedly how the masses of the people formed ranks before the capitol's of the provincial governments; they demanded that the power be handed over, and in some cases that was actually done. That is, at a time when negotiations were still going on about a new government under Seyss-Inquart.
Q.So, if I understand you correctly, this description of Rainer is in part correct.
A.Absolutely. I can't say of my own account where and in what towns and at what time the powers of the government were handed over in the provincial capitals, but I know that this was before the events in Vienna.
Q.How do you explain, Herr Reinthaller, that this change took place so calmly, in spite of the great bitterness of the national circles which you mentioned before?
A.You must not overlook the fact that the tremendous joy concerning the removal of a system, which, for five years, had morally and materially oppressed the people, made them forget everything that lay behind these events. Seyss-Inquart enjoyed the confidence of the people, especially since Leopold had been calledout to the Reich. In addition to that, extensive circles of the catholic movement, and especially extensive circles of the former Social Democrat Party, were absolutely satisfied with this development.
Insofar as the Social Democrats were not already in the Socialist camp, it was quite definite that they preferred to go along with the German Reich and with Adolf Hitler than with Italian Fascism. And since large masses of the Austrians stood behind the Anschluss movement, the expressions of joy were in accordance with that sentiment. Only in that way can it be understood that an event surprising to us could take place without any scenes taking place anywhere, or, if they did, they were hardly noticed.
Q.Witness, had a reconciliation slogan been issued at that time by the Austrian Party and the government leaders?
A.The leading members of the national opposition at that time asked the people to abstain from all acts of revenge and to shake hands in reconciliation with everyone, and that was really done. I can remember scenes in the Ring in Vienna where people embraced and kissed, police, Wehrmacht, and civilians.
Q.Do you remember that on the evening of the 11th of March disturbing news became known in Vienna that, as a result of the arming of some parts of the population, especially Communists, the danger of disturbances seemed imminent?
A.I can remember that on the 11th of March 1938, the rumor was spread that an armed suppression of the protest movement must be expected. On the other hand, I must emphasize once again that the intention of wide circles of the national opposition to make themselves felt by arms, if necessary, had increased considerably during 1938. So the danger of an armed clash was certainly very great at that time. However, the fact that the entire population was joining in this Anschluss movement--that is, it was a sort of national rising--and another fact, which I would also like to mention, that the marching in of German troops had been announced, worked like a cold shower on those people who had no doubt intended to use brutal methods to get their way once again.
These circles were not large, but they existed.
Q.Witness, is it correct that in the night form the 11th to the 12th of March, 1938, arms distributed to the population were, as a result of official demands that they be given up, actually given up to a large extent?
A.I don't know that from my own observations, but I heard of it, that is, that arms which had been delivered were again given up, and that nowhere was there any resistance offered.
Q.Witness, events resulted in a later plebiscite about the Anschluss taking place on the 10th of April 1938, instead of the plebiscite first announced by Schuschnigg.
MR. GANTT:Your Honor, I object to this question. The events after the taking over of Austria on the 10th, 11th and 12th of March 1938 are entirely irrelevant.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:What was that?
MR. GANTT:I object to this question. The events after the taking over of Austria are entirely irrelevant to the question of whether there was an invasion of Austria or not.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:What do you claim for him, counsel?
DR. SCHUBERT:I haven't asked any question yet, You Honor. First of all, I would like to put my question.
MR. GANTT:Your Honor-
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Well, that is the customary procedure.
MR. GANTT:I object to that.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Let him ask the question.
MR. GANTT:I want to say that counsel asked him a question and immediately after he asked his question I objected. The question of defense counsel was about the events of the plebiscite after the 12th of March 1938.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Is there a question pending now unanswered?
DR. SCHUBERT:No, there is no unanswered question pending, Your Honor, because I haven't put one yet.
I merely stated a fact and wanted to join my question on to this statement of fact. BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q.My question is, according to your personal observations, witness, did the overwhelming result, the plebsicite of the 10th of April 1938 concerning the Anschluss, correspond to the confictions of the Austrian people, or was this plebiscite a falsified propaganda matter?
MR. GANTT:That is exactly the question as I understood it before that defense counsel was asking. I object to this question because it is irrelevant. The events of the 12th of March 1938 are not charged.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:When was this plebiscite held?
MR. GANTT:The plebiscite was in April 1938, approximately one month after the invasion of Austria.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:I don't think it is very material, but I don't see any harm in letting that question be answered. BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q.Do you still remember my question?
A.Do you want me to answer the question?
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:GO ahead. BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q.Yes, please.
A.The plebiscite of the 10th of April 1938 was undoubtedly absolutely correct. I refer to the fact that a large number of foreign reporters were present in Vienna and Austria who observed this plebiscite.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Well, you don't need to tell us about them. That is pure argument. Let's get along. It seems to me we have spent altogether too much time on this matter already. BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q.Witness, if I understood you correctly-
A.Well, the election was absolutely correct. I can't say any thing else.
And it couldn't have been otherwise because at the back of the plebiscite there stood not only the national elements of Austria, but, as you know, fulminating proclamations had been issued by the Bishops of Austria, the former Social Democrat leader, and one could not imagine anything else but-
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:That is just pure argument. I think we have the picture; let's move along. BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q.In conclusion, witness, on the basis of your connections with the defendant Keppler which you have described, can you briefly tell me what impression you had of Keppler and his way of working?
A.As I said, Know Keppler from July 1937 onwards, and I knew him pretty well at that time. For us in Austria he was the man from the Reich; not the representative of the Party. He did not come to Austria with any prejudices, but understood our attitude very well. We considered him a sort of adviser and uncle.
Excuse me, Dr. Keppler, if I speak so frankly.
At any rate, he never pushed his way into anything, and I can only stress the fact that the contributed to a very large extent to the conciliation plan working at all. And, again, the conciliation plan was the brake which made it possible to avoid the revolution and nip it in the bud again and again; otherwise, it would undoubtedly have come.
DR. SCHUBERT:Thank you, witness, That concludes my examination.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Do any other defense counsel have any questions to propound to this witness? Is there cross-examination?
MR. GANTT:Yes, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR, GANTT:
QWitness, when did you become a member of the Nazi Party?
AIn 1928.
QWhat is your membership number?
AEighty-three thousand and something.
QYou got the Golden Party Badge for fifteen years membership?
AThe Golden Party Badge was given to members whose number was below 100,000.
QIn what year was the Nazi Party declared illegal in Austria?
AIt was not declared to be illegal; it was banned on the 19th of June 1933.
QWhen did you get the Party's medal for a fifteenyear membership.
AI'm sorry; I didn't hear the question.
(THE COURT INTERPRETER REPEATS THE QUESTION)
The party medal for a fifteen-year membership was awarded when one had been a member for fifteen years.
QIn what year?
AWell, as far as I remember, It was in 1943.
QThat means you were a member of the Nazi Party in Austria after 1933, when Party membership was prohibited by Austrian law. Is that correct?
AWell, yes.
QWitness, that's enough; I don't need an explanation-
either "yes" or "no."
AI was not a Party member between 1933 and 1938, because, at that time, the Party did not exist for me, but later these five years were counted in for us old Party members.
QYou didn't protest against this, did you?
AHow?
QYou didn't protest against getting the medal for fifteen years?
ANo; I did not.
QWhen did you become a member of the SS?
AAs a member of the Party I was automatically transferred to the SS after the Anschluss of Austria to Germany on the basis of an agreement which had been made earlier between the Reich Fuehrer SS and the Peasant leadership. I was told that I would thereby automatically get an honorary rank.
QDid all member of this Farmers' Party, or whatever you call it, become SS members?
AThe provincial peasant leaders all went into the General SS.
QWere they all Nazis before?
AMost of them had been National Socialists.
QWhat rank did you get in the SS?
AWell, you must give me the names.
QNo, witness; my question was: What rank did you get in the SS?
AI myself had the rank of Standartenfuehrer.
QDid you get a promotion later on?
AYes, I was promoted later to be SS-Oberfuehrer, and later Brigadefuehrer, incidently without ever having had anything to do with the SS. I never exercised any functions in the SS.