Chapter XVIII: Book 3: , Document Numbers 87 and 93, namely, an affidavit of the former (6)

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: At the moment, you see, I was really asking you for an explanation of what you meant by the expression, “dynamic result of internal events in Germany.” In short, I want you to realize, Defendant—I am not going to argue with you, because I ought not to—that the first point of Mr. Messersmith was a question of this action in southeastern Europe; the second point, that Austria was the first line, the first thing to be dealt with. Now, I wonder if you will be good enough to take the same bundle and turn over to Page 102 which is a report of your own dated 8 October 1935. I want you to deal with Mr. Messersmith’s third suggestion against you, which you deny, that you were going to work in Austria by a weakening of the regime.

Now I will just read the first sentence so that you will get the point into your mind. The report that I am dealing with is of 18 October 1935. You are dealing with the Austrian Government reshuffle, and you are saying—My Lord, this is a new document. It is GB-502, Document Number D-718. It is in 11a, Page 106. It begins:

“Yesterday’s Cabinet reshuffle resembles a bloodless
insurrection led by Prince Starhemberg and the Heimwehr
(Austrian Home Defense Organization). It is clear that Minister
Fey heard early of his intended dismissal and that as early as
yesterday afternoon he had the public buildings in Vienna
occupied by the Viennese Heimwehr, which is loyal to him. The
Government countered this measure by simultaneously reinforcing
the occupation by Police forces.”

Now you go on to discuss the matter. That is at the beginning of the report. Then, if you turn to the next page, at 102, and refer about halfway down the page, you say this:

“In spite of the Vice Chancellor’s clear victory and of the
strenuous efforts of the Austrian press to make it appear
plausible that the Cabinet reshuffle was carried out for reasons
of internal consolidation, the feeling of moving towards a
completely uncertain development prevails in the Austrian
public, as also in the Heimwehr circles.

“From our point of view the change of affairs is only too
welcome. Every new weakening of the system is of advantage, even
if it at first seems in fact to be directed against us. The
fronts are starting to move and it will have to be our task to
keep them moving.”

Now, Defendant, by that it is quite clear, is it not, that you meant that so long as there is political uncertainty or political trouble in the Austrian State, it does not matter whether the move may be an anti-German one, so long as the struggle grows with distrust spreading? That was an advantage to Germany, and that is what you want. That is what the lines mean, is it not?

VON PAPEN: No, not quite.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Not quite?

VON PAPEN: I should like to make the following remarks about your explanation, Sir David. Here in this report we are concerned with a change in the Austrian Government, with Prince Starhemberg and the Heimwehr involved. You know that Starhemberg and the Heimwehr had allied themselves with Mussolini against the German Reich. A loosening-up of this inner political front which was working against the interests of a union could be only advantageous, in the light of my policy.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But what I do not understand is this. You see, you have said, “In spite of the Vice Chancellor’s clear victory and of the diligent efforts of the Austrian press....” and you go on to say, “....every new weakening of the system is of advantage.” You see, Prince Starhemberg and the Italian party, according to you, had won, because you say, “In spite of....” this “....clear victory.”

Then you say, “every new weakening of the system.” That could not be Starhemberg’s alliance, because that had been successful. By “the system” you mean the Government of Austria, do you not? You cannot mean anything else.

My Lord, perhaps I should not continue the argument. But it is a somewhat complicated subject.

VON PAPEN: Yes, it is.

THE PRESIDENT: I was thinking that you should perhaps draw attention to the few remaining sentences.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, certainly I will read on:

“The continuation of negotiations for a settlement which I had
recommended since the Geneva declaration, seems to be entirely
superfluous for the time being. It will be a good thing to
continue the increasingly excited public feeling against the
Italian trend by clever and tactful handling via the press
without, however, giving the Government justifiable cause for
having recourse to the desperate measure of starting a new
propaganda campaign against us. I would be very grateful if the
Reich Minister for Propaganda were to put a few experienced
journalists to work in this connection.

“For the rest, we can confidently leave further developments to
the near future. I am convinced that the shifting of powers on
the European chess board will permit us in the not too distant
future to take up actively the question of influencing the
southeastern area.”

Extraordinary—if I may so—extraordinary how Mr. Messersmith had got your ideas if you had never had this conversation with him, was it not?

My Lord, perhaps this will be a convenient time to adjourn.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn at this time.

VON PAPEN: But may I come back to that question tomorrow?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 19 June 1946 at 1000 hours._]

ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-EIGHTH DAY
Wednesday, 19 June 1946

_Morning Session_

MARSHAL: If it please the Tribunal, the report is made that Defendant Von Neurath is absent.

[_The Defendant Von Papen resumed the stand._]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just before we leave Mr. Messersmith, Defendant, I want to ask you three questions about the other countries in southeastern Europe that Mr. Messersmith mentioned. Did you know that the German Foreign Office financed and directed the Henlein movement among the Sudetendeutschen?

VON PAPEN: I do not believe that I learned of that at that time. In 1935, when this report was written, the Sudeten-German question was not acute.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: When did you learn about it?

VON PAPEN: Mainly here in this room.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Did you know that the Reich was supporting Mr. Codreanu and the Iron Guard in Romania?

VON PAPEN: I believe that that was also much later.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You learned that sometime later than 1935, did you? When did you learn that?

VON PAPEN: I cannot say; but I believe that events in connection with the Iron Guard in Romania took place about 1937. I may be wrong; but I do not think so.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I think perhaps you have the microphone a little too near you.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please, I am sorry.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Did you know that in 1944 you were discussed in a Reich state paper edited by the Defendant Kaltenbrunner as being a possible person to do the same thing in Hungary, to arrange for Hungary’s acquisition by the Reich, doing the internal work inside Hungary in order that Hungary should be acquired? Did you know that?

VON PAPEN: No. In the first place, I did not know that; and in the second place I may say that the idea is impossible, because I was a close friend of the Regent of Hungary, Admiral Horthy. In my interrogatory to Admiral Horthy I asked him a question which he unfortunately failed to answer because he did not remember. It says that in the autumn of 1943 the Hungarian Minister of the Interior, Keresctes-Fischer, handed me a document showing that German or German and Hungarian forces wanted to bring about the incorporation of Hungary into the Reich through a revolt. At Regent Horthy’s desire, I at once handed this document over to Herr Von Ribbentrop and asked him to take the appropriate measures to prevent it. That is all set down in the files, and the Hungarian Minister of the Interior will be able to confirm it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see my point. I do not mind whether you would have taken it or not. The point that I am putting is that you were the choice. Don’t you know that? You know the document I am referring to, D-679, with many comments by Kaltenbrunner, in which you were discussed as being the possible person to do the internal work in Hungary.

My Lord, it is Page 78 of Document Book 11, and Page 46 of the German Document Book 11.

VON PAPEN: Sir David, I went over this note the day before yesterday after you submitted it here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will not trouble you with it if you only learned it here. The only point I want to know is this. Did you know in 1944 that you were being suggested in a German state document as being the person who might do the internal work in Hungary in order that Hungary might be acquired by the Reich? If you say you do not know, I shall not trouble you with it any further. You say you only knew that since the day before yesterday?

VON PAPEN: Yes, and in the second place, it is a historical fact that I repeatedly opposed these efforts in Hungary which aimed in one way or another, ultimately by occupation, at making Hungary a part of the German Reich. I considered that the most mistaken and most impossible policy imaginable.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will not trouble you about the documents since you have not known; we will come to another point.

You remember Gauleiter Rainer, the gentleman with whom you had the fortuitous and I am sure very interesting talk on the eve of the Anschluss; Dr. Rainer, the witness? I would just like you to look at Dr. Rainer’s view of the position when you took over, and tell the Tribunal whether you agree with that.

My Lord, it is Page 6 of Document Book 11; the document is 812-PS. It starts on Page 6 and the passage which I am going to refer to is on Page 8.

Have you got the passage that begins:

“Thus began the first phase of battle, which ended with the July
uprising of 1934. The decision for the July uprising was right;
but many mistakes were made in carrying it out. The result was
the complete destruction of the organization, the loss of entire
groups of fighters through imprisonment or flight into the
‘Altreich,’ and, with regard to the political relationship
between Germany and Austria, a formal acknowledgement of the
existence of the Austrian State by the German Government. With
the telegram to Papen, instructing him to reinstitute normal
relationships between the two States, the Führer liquidated the
first stage of the battle and began a new method of political
penetration.”

Would you agree that that is a correct description of your work, “a new method of political penetration”?

VON PAPEN: No, Sir David. That is a very inaccurate description of my activity.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if you don’t agree with Dr. Rainer, tell me—you know, you must know very well, the witness Dr. Paul Schmidt. You know him?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Very well. Now I think you will agree with me that he is one of the personalities against whom nobody had said a word during this Trial. Do you agree? I haven’t heard a word of criticism of Paul Schmidt. Don’t you agree with me?

VON PAPEN: Do you mean the witness—the interpreter Schmidt or the Foreign Minister Schmidt?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Paul Schmidt, the interpreter.

VON PAPEN: Paul Schmidt, the interpreter. I will give you my opinion on that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, do you agree that he is a trustworthy person or not? Do you say that he is not a trustworthy person?

VON PAPEN: I have nothing to say against the human qualities of Herr Schmidt, but I have a very strong objection to the fact that Herr Schmidt takes the liberty of criticizing my political activities in Austria.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, before you explain it, just have a look at it. You will find Dr. Paul Schmidt’s affidavit on Page 41 of Document