Chapter XVIII: Part I: , Page 777, our Document Number 3301-PS, found at Page 107 of the (3)

Now as a result of this directive, apparently telephoned to Keppler, Keppler, on the 8th of January 1938, wrote a letter to Seyss-Inquart. I now offer this letter, which is Document Number 3397-PS, in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-702. Keppler writes, and the Tribunal will remember that Keppler was, at that time, Secretary of State in charge of Austrian affairs of the German Government:

“Dear State Councillor:

“The other day I had a visit from Mr. Pl. who gave us a report
of the state of affairs, and informed us that you are seriously
considering the question of whether or not you are forced to
hand back the mandate entrusted to you.

“I informed General Göring of the situation in writing, and G.
just had me informed that I should try my utmost to prevent you,
or any one else, from taking this step. This is also in the same
vein as G.’s conversation with Dr. J. before Christmas; at any
rate, G. requests you to undertake nothing of this nature under
any circumstances before he himself has the opportunity of
speaking with you once more.

“I can also inform you that G. is, furthermore, making an effort
to speak to Ll., in order that certain improper conditions be
eliminated by him.”

Then the letter is signed by Keppler.

The two letters together, if the Tribunal please, show clearly enough the extent to which this defendant was a tool, the extent to which he was being used at that time by the conspirators in their planning for their assault on Austria. Now, once German troops were in Austria and Seyss-Inquart had become Chancellor, he lost no time carrying out the plan of his Nazi fellow conspirators.

I next offer in evidence Document 3254-PS, which is a memorandum written by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart entitled, “The Austrian Question.” It is Exhibit Number USA-704. I offer it only because of the description which he gives of the manner in which he secured the passage of an Austrian act in annexing Austria to Germany. He said that on March 13 German officials brought him a proposal for inviting Austria into Germany. They reported that. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Are you quoting?

LT. ATHERTON: I now quote from the middle of Page 20 of the English text:

“I called a meeting of the Council of Ministers, after having
been told by Dr. Wolf that the Bundespräsident would make no
difficulties in regard to that realization; he would return to
his home in the meantime and would await me there. On my
proposal the Council of Ministers assembled in the meantime
adopted the draft bill to which my law section had made some
formal modifications. The vote on the 20th of April had been
planned already in the first draft. According to the provisions
of the Constitution of 1 May 1934, any fundamental modification
of the Constitution could be decided by the Council of Ministers
with the approbation of the Bundespräsident. A vote or a
confirmation by the nation was in no way provided for. In the
event that the Bundespräsident should, for any reason, either
resign his functions or be for some time unable to fulfill them,
his prerogatives were to go over to the Bundeskanzler. I went to
the Bundespräsident with Dr. Wolf. The President told me that he
did not know whether this development would be of benefit to the
Austrian nation but that he did not wish to interfere and
preferred to resign his functions, so that all constitutional
rights would come into my hands.”

And then, skipping two or three sentences to the top of Page 21:

“Thereafter I returned to Linz by car, where I arrived about
midnight and reported to the Führer the accomplishment of the
Anschluss law.”

The same day Germany formally incorporated Austria into the Reich by a decree and declared it to be a province of the German Reich, in violation of Article 80 of the Treaty of Versailles. I ask the Court to take judicial notice of Document Number 2307-PS, which is the decree to this effect, published in 1938 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 237.

If the Defendant Seyss-Inquart seems unduly modest as to the part which he played in undermining the Government to which he owed allegiance, his fellow conspirators were quick to recognize the importance of his contributions. In a speech on the 26th of March 1938, the Defendant Göring said—and I am reading now from Document 3270-PS, Exhibit Number USA-703, which is an extract from the _Dokumente der Deutschen Politik_, Volume 6, Page 183:

“A complete unanimity between the Führer and the National
Socialist confidants inside of Austria existed. . . . If the
National Socialists’ rising succeeded so quickly and thoroughly
and without bloodshed, it is first of all due to the calm, firm,
prudent, and decisive attitude of the present Reichsstatthalter
Seyss-Inquart and his confidants.”

I want, before leaving the matter of the Anschluss, to stress this once more, because this was a time of great importance, and it was Seyss-Inquart who held the key position in this first open attack on another country. Had it not been for his part, as has been shown, things might have gone very differently, and if there were no other place where he was connected with the conspirators’ plans for aggression, this would be sufficient to rank him with the foremost of the conspirators.

Now, passing on, Mr. Alderman has shown the way in which Seyss-Inquart co-operated with the conspirators in integrating Austria as fully as possible into the Reich, making its resources available to the Reich—its resources of wealth and its resources of manpower.

In furtherance of the conspirators’ plan, Reichsstatthalter Seyss-Inquart for the first time demonstrated his talent for the persecution of Jewish citizens. In an address in Vienna on the 26th of March 1938, which will be found at Page 2326 (Volume IV, Page 552) of the Record, he recalls that Göring expressly commissioned this defendant, as Reichsstatthalter, to institute anti-Semitic measures.

And the Tribunal will remember from previous evidence the kind of wholesale larceny which this involved. So successfully did Seyss-Inquart perform his task that at the meeting of the Air Ministry under the chairmanship of the Defendant Göring on the 12th of November 1938, Fischböck, a member of Seyss-Inquart’s official family, was able to relate the efficiency with which the civil administration in Austria dealt with the so-called “Jewish question.” I refer to Document Number 1816-PS, Exhibit Number USA-261, and I am reading first from Page 14 of the English translation. The Tribunal will note that this is the third full paragraph from the bottom of Page 14:

“Your Excellency: In this matter we have already a very complete
plan for Austria. There are 12,000 Jewish artisans and 5,000
Jewish retail shops in Vienna. Before the seizure of power we
had already a definite plan for tradesmen, regarding this total
of 17,000 stores. Of the shops of the 12,000 artisans about
10,000 were to be closed definitely and 2,000 were to be kept
open; 4,000 of the 5,000 retail stores should be closed and
1,000 should be kept open, that is, Aryanized. According to this
plan, between 3,000 and 3,500 of the total of 17,000 stores
would be kept open, all others closed. This was decided
following investigations in every single branch and according to
local needs, in agreement with all competent authorities, and is
ready for publication as soon as we receive the law which we
requested in September. This law shall empower us to withdraw
licenses from artisans quite independent of the Jewish
question.”

Göring said:

“I shall have this decree issued today.”

Then, if the Tribunal please, I just wish to read one more sentence from the middle of the next page, in which Fischböck says:

“Out of 17,000 stores 12,000 or 14,000 would be closed and the
remainder Aryanized or handed over to the Bureau of Trustees
which is operated by the State.”

And Göring replies:

“I have to say that this proposal is grand. This way the whole
affair would be wound up in Vienna, one of the Jewish capitals,
so to speak, by Christmas or by the end of the year.”

The Defendant Funk then says:

“We can do the same thing over here.”

In other words, Seyss-Inquart’s so-called solution was so highly regarded that it was considered a model for the rest of the Reich.

The task of integrating Austria into the Reich being substantially complete, the Nazi conspirators were able to use Seyss-Inquart’s expert services for the subjugation of other peoples. As an illustration I refer the Tribunal to Document D-571, Exhibit Number USA-112, which has already been read in evidence. The Tribunal will recall that from this document it appeared that on the 21st of March 1939 an official of the British Government reported from Prague to Viscount Halifax that a little earlier, on the 11th of March 1939, Seyss-Inquart, Bürckel, and five German generals attended a meeting of the Cabinet of the Slovak Government and told them that they should proclaim the independence of Slovakia, that Hitler had decided to settle the question of Czechoslovakia definitely (this has been read in court today) and that, unless they did as they were told, Hitler would disinterest himself in their fate. It just gives an indication of the manner in which this man continued to be busy in the aggressive plans of these Nazi conspirators.

Now early in September 1939, after the opening of the attack against Poland, Seyss-Inquart became Chief of the Civil Administration of south Poland. A few weeks later, on 12 October 1939, Hitler promulgated a decree providing that territories occupied by German troops, except those incorporated within the German Reich, should be subject to the authority of the Governor General of the occupied Polish territories and he appointed the Defendant Frank as Governor General and the Defendant Seyss-Inquart as Deputy Governor General. This decree will be found in the 1939 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 2077, and I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. Shortly thereafter, on 26 October 1939, Frank promulgated a decree establishing the administration of the occupied Polish territories, of which he was Governor. This decree is published in the _Dokumente der Deutschen Politik_ and appears in the document book as 3468-PS. I am informed that this book, Volume 7, has also received the Exhibit Number 705 and I offer it as such.

Article 3 of the decree provided that the Chief of the Office of the Governor General and the Higher SS and Police Leader are directly subordinate to the Governor General and his Deputy. The Deputy, of course, was the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.

The significance of that provision is obvious in the light of the evidence which the Tribunal has heard and will hear. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it.

As Deputy Governor General of the Polish occupied territories, Seyss-Inquart seems to have had the job of setting up a German administration throughout this territory; that is, he worked under the Defendant Frank but did much of the work of interviewing the various local leaders, telling them what they should do. As an illustration I offer in evidence a report of a trip which Seyss-Inquart and his consultants took between the 17th and 22d of February 1939. This is our Document Number 2278-PS, and I offer it as Exhibit Number USA-706. If the Tribunal please, I have misstated that date or period. It was the 17th to the 22d of November 1939, in other words, shortly after the administration was set up. On the first page of the English translation—and I now quote from the second full paragraph—the following appears:

“At 3:00 p. m. Reich Minister, Dr. Seyss-Inquart, addressed the
department heads of the district chief and stated among other
things that the chief guiding rule for carrying out German
administration in the Government General must be solely the
interests of the German Reich. A stern and inflexible
administration must make the area of use to German economy; and,
so that excessive clemency may be guarded against, the results
of the intrusion of the Polish race into German territory must
be brought to mind.”

This report is too long, if the Tribunal please, to quote from at too great length; but if the Tribunal will turn over to Page 7, I would like to read in some extracts of what occurred while the defendant was in Lublin. From the report it appears that the Defendant Seyss-Inquart after meeting the various local German administrative officers “then expounded the principles,” and I am now quoting from the top of Page 7, “in accordance with which the administration in the ‘Government’ must be conducted.” Then, skipping a sentence:

“The resources and inhabitants of this country would have to be
made of service to the Reich, and only within these limits could
they prosper. Independent political thought should no longer be
allowed to develop. The Vistula area might perhaps be still more
important to German destiny than the Rhine. The Minister then
gave as a guiding theme to the district leaders: ‘We will
further everything which is of service to the Reich and will put
an end to everything which may harm the Reich.’ Dr.
Seyss-Inquart then added that the Governor General wished that
those men who were fulfilling a task for the Reich here should
receive a post with material benefits in keeping with their
responsibility and achievements.”

Then, if the Tribunal will turn over two more pages, the reporter is describing a sightseeing tour which was made to the village of Wlodawa, Cycow, and I quote:

“Cycow is a German village. . .”—skipping down a couple of
sentences—“Reich Minister Dr. Seyss-Inquart made a speech in
which he pointed out that the fidelity of these Germans to their
nationality now found its justification and reward through the
strength of Adolf Hitler.”

And then the next sentence, apparently thrown in by the reporter:

“This district with its very marshy character could, according
to District Chief Schmidt’s deliberations, serve as a
reservation for the Jews, a measure which might possibly lead to
heavy mortality among the Jews.”

THE PRESIDENT: We might break off here for 10 minutes.

[_A recess was taken._]

LT. ATHERTON: If the Tribunal please, at the time the Tribunal rose, I was in the process of considering the functions of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, his place as Deputy Governor General of Poland, between 1939 and 1940.

Now the Tribunal has already heard evidence of the atrocities which were perpetrated by the administration which Seyss-Inquart thus helped to create. The prosecutors for the Soviet Union will present to the Tribunal more evidence of such atrocities. For our present purposes, to show the importance of the work which this man did to further the Nazi plan for the Government General of Poland, it is enough to quote a few words from the diary of the Defendant Frank.

On the occasion of what was apparently a farewell lunch to Seyss-Inquart, when he became Reich Commissioner of the Netherlands, Frank said—and I now quote from Document 3465-PS, Pages 510 and 511 of Volume 2, the 1940 volume of the diary, which is Exhibit Number USA-614:

“I am extremely glad, Mr. Reich Commissioner and Reich Minister,
to assure you, in this hour of your departure, that the months
of our collaboration with you belong to the most precious
memories of my life and that your work in the Government General
will be remembered forever in the building of the coming world
empire of the German nation.”

Skipping down a little, if the Tribunal please, Frank went on to say:

“In the construction of the Government General your name will
forever take a place of honor as an originator of this
organization and this state system. . . . I express our thanks,
Mr. Reich Minister, for your collaboration and for your creative
energy.”

Then reading the last two or three sentences:

“During the hard times common work united us here in the East,
but it is at the same time the beginning point for a gigantic
power development of the German Reich. Its perfection will show
the development of the greatest energy unit which there ever was
in the history of the world. In this work you were placed by the
Führer, very effectively, in the most important position.”

And to these remarks the Defendant Seyss-Inquart replied and I now quote from the second page of the translation:

“I learned here a lot, many things which I did not understand
before at all, and mainly on account of the initiative and firm
leadership as I saw them in my friend Dr. Frank.”

Then, skipping a sentence:

“I will now go to the West, and I want to be quite open with
you. With my whole heart I am present, because my whole attitude
is one directed toward the East. In the East we have a National
Socialist mission; over there, in the West, we have a function;
that may be the difference.”

I submit, if the Tribunal please, that the sentences which I have just read show clearly enough the conscious participation of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart in the Polish phase of the conspiracy.

Thus equipped with experience gained in Poland under the Defendant Frank, Seyss-Inquart was ready to undertake his last and most ambitious task, the enslavement of the Netherlands. The ruthless manner in which he performed it marks his position in the Nazi Common Plan or Conspiracy.

I ask the Tribunal first to take judicial notice of a decree of Hitler of 18 May 1940, which is found in 1940 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, Page 778. The translation will be found in the book as Document 1376-PS. By Section 1 of this decree it is provided that:

“The Reich Commissioner is protector of the interests of the
Reich and will represent the supreme power of the Government
within the civil sphere. He will be directly subordinated to me
and will receive directives and orders from me.”