Chapter XX: Book 11

Well now, let me take another example. Do you remember the meeting of the comrades of the first World War at Wels?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was, if my recollection is right, in 1937, was it not?

VON PAPEN: Quite right, yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And all the preparations had been made for a nonpolitical meeting, a reunion of the Austrian regiments and old comrades from the German regiments, and after the meeting they were to have a sort of dinner or lunch together, and the evening was to finish in jollity and song. That was the program, wasn’t it?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That meeting was addressed by General Glaise-Horstenau and yourself?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: General Glaise-Horstenau—without any disrespect to him—I think you will agree made a not very powerful speech. That was your impression, wasn’t it, a not very powerful speech? Interesting but not dynamic? Believe me, I am not being offensive to the general. I am merely trying to get the point.

VON PAPEN: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You made a speech which lasted for quite a short time, didn’t you? Do you remember?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: After your speech, there was beating and shooting through the streets of Wels, wasn’t there? There was a riot there, wasn’t there?

VON PAPEN: May I give you a more exact description?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if you can. I wanted to establish the fact. You are perfectly entitled now to give your explanation.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there a document on this?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no document on this.

VON PAPEN: A meeting had been arranged in Wels between organizations of the old German Army from the first World War, the so-called Warriors’ Society, (Kriegerverein) and the veterans’ associations of Austria. It was perfectly legitimate and in the spirit of our joint policy that the mutual experiences during the first World War should be renewed between these formations. At this meeting, which according to my wish and that of the Austrian Government was to be completely nonpolitical in character, the following events took place: When I arrived, the place where this meeting of veterans’ associations was held, was surrounded by between 5,000 and 10,000 people. The Austrian Government, to receive their German guests, brought an honor company of the Army, and when the Austrian band played the Austrian national anthem on my arrival, these 10,000 people who surrounded the place sang the German national anthem, for the tune is the same, as you know.

When in the course of the celebration I made a brief speech I found myself constantly interrupted by thousands of people, in a demonstrative manner. Of course, I immediately realized that the Austrian National Socialists had planned a big political demonstration here; so I broke off my speech, and shortly afterwards I left the place, and left Wels also.

It is quite true, as Sir David said, that when the celebration broke up and the Austrian police wanted to proceed against the thousands of persons who were demonstrating, very unfortunate incidents occurred.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, if that is your explanation, I have put the facts of the incident. Now I want to pass to another point, because I can only give examples of your activities in Austria.

Before you heard the evidence of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, do you remember the phrase “the Trojan Horse technique” being referred to with regard to Austria?

VON PAPEN: Yes. Seyss-Inquart did not want to lead the Trojan Horse.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, but before that, you know, you had referred to the Trojan Horse technique.

My Lord, it is Document Book 11, Page 133. The passage I am referring to is from Page 134. The document is D-706, which will become GB-506. It is Page 163, Sergeant Major.

That is your report of 21 August 1936, where you quote an instruction of the Prague Secret Service to its Vienna branch, which says:

“Unfortunately it must be noted that the wild National Socialist
excesses of 29 July of this year have not had the result we
expected. Austria’s approach to the Third Reich in the field of
foreign politics is making further progress, as well as the
process of cultural collaboration between the two sister
nations. One can also assume from your most recent reports that
the Trojan Horse of National Socialism is bringing greater
confusion into the ranks of the Fatherland Front and
particularly into the ranks bf the Heimatschutz (Home Guard).
Opposition to the normalizing of German-Austrian relations,
which is extremely dangerous to Austrian independence, appears
nevertheless to be relatively very great; it obviously lacks
only good organization.”

Now, does that Czech report describe correctly what was going on, the superficial normalization of relations and the Trojan Horse movement working inside the country?

VON PAPEN: Sir David, that is the opinion of the Czech Secret Service and perhaps of the Czech Government.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I remind you, Defendant, that it is the opinion quoted by you in your report to the Führer, and not contradicted. There is not a word in your report suggesting that it is not the truth. In fact you say you introduce it, “To illustrate the present position in Austria...”

You are introducing it as correct information for the Führer, so you cannot, I suggest, write it off by saying it is merely a Czech report.

VON PAPEN: Yes, I do. Let me point out that this report was written on 21 August 1936. That is 1 month after the conclusion of our July Agreement, which you asserted was a deceitful maneuver, but which we and the Austrian Foreign Minister established as a very seriously intended agreement. We were now on a completely different basis with Austria and for that reason I quoted this peculiar Czech report as an interesting document to show how, in spite of our efforts for normalization, the Czechs regarded matters in Austria.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you leaving that document?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: What about the last paragraph?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, I will certainly deal with that.

THE PRESIDENT: Page 134.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.

It goes on:

“Besides, it appears hopeless and also impracticable for us to
strive to influence Austrian legitimism or the Heimwehr
movement. There are, on the other hand, comparatively strong
elements in Austrian Catholicism which could, with certain
reservations, be called democratic. These elements, which are
gradually grouping themselves round the Freiheitsbund (Freedom
League) and which are inclined on principle to work for an
agreement with the Social Democrats, represent, in our opinion,
that group which would in certain circumstances be inclined to
bring about a revolution in internal politics in Austria.”

Did you put that forward as also representing your view?

VON PAPEN: Sir David, I gave the Court a most exact explanation of the aims and character of the Freiheitsbund yesterday; and the Court knows from the report that the Czech Government endeavored to exert a certain amount of political influence on this Freiheitsbund. That is quite clear from the connection. This is all in the Czech report.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then you were putting it forward, were you not, as your view to Hitler that, to speak loosely, the Catholic Left might be used as a means of approach by you. That is really what you are saying.

VON PAPEN: Sir David, surely you do not want to impute that I submitted a Czech report to Hitler in order to identify myself with this report.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that is what I am accusing you of. If you write to the head of the State, “To illustrate the present position in Austria, I append an extract from a report....” then what I am suggesting is that that means this report accurately represents the position, as I see it. That is what I am putting to you.

VON PAPEN: No, for another report which you also submitted to the Court shows that I asked Hitler to work against these efforts made by the Czech Government to exert influence on the Freiheitsbund by binding it to ourselves. I am of quite different opinion.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, you asked Hitler to give 100,000 Reichsmarks to the Freiheitsbund. That is exactly what you are following out in what you have suggested here, that they might be a body who would be a useful _point d’appui_ for you in order to gain an influence with another section of Austrian opinion. I am suggesting to you that the two things are quite consistent. You tell Hitler that they are useful.

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you support them with 100,000 Reichsmarks. That is what I am putting to you.

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That you were all the time burrowing under one section of Austrian opinion after another in order to work towards the suppression of the freedom of Austria—that is what I am putting to you. I do not think there is any doubt about it.

VON PAPEN: Sir David, if this report shows anything clearly, it is the fact that, apart from the National Socialists in Austria, there were other groups, namely, the Christian Trade Unions and the Freiheitsbund, who worked politically towards the union of the two countries. And you cannot say I am committing a crime if, as a diplomat who wants to bring about such an aim in an evolutionary way, I co-operate with the interests of these groups.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There was not anything very evolutionary about the Trojan Horse, was there? However, that may be comment. Let us go on to another point.

Did you know Baron Gudenus?

VON PAPEN: No, I did not know him.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You know that he was the closest confidant of the Archduke Otto. Do you remember?

VON PAPEN: Yes, that is shown in my report.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Well now, let us just look and see what Baron Gudenus had to say.

Your Lordship will find that on Page 93, and it is 72 to 75 of the German version, Document D-687 which will become GB-507. It is Paragraph 2 (b) and it appears on Page 74, Defendant.

“Baron Gudenus, the closest confidant of the Archduke Otto,
writes to....”

There is a mistake there, my Lord. The “me” should be “one.”

“....one of my acquaintances on 30 March:

“....I brought back many gratifying impressions of the progress
of our Movement with me from Austria; but I cannot deny that in
some respects the Government’s policy worries me greatly. Of
what use is it that the ringleaders of February and July
1934—or those of them who were caught—are sentenced, if the
Government is too weak, too slovenly, or intentionally too
tolerant, to prevent ‘brown’ and ‘red’ propaganda being carried
on privately unhindered in the cinema, in the press, and on the
radio, and mainly by State officials or organs of the Fatherland
Front, supported and paid by financial and other means which are
pouring in bountifully from Germany. What is that learned
idealist Schuschnigg actually doing? Does he not notice that
Papen and the other ‘brown’ agents in his own country
continually spit into the hand so persistently held out to them?
He must not imagine that he can thus maintain and save Austria,
as long as Hitler rules in a Germany which is painted brown
inside and out. The methods over there have, it is true, become
more clever and more careful, but this makes them all the more
dangerous.”

That was about 7 months after your arrival.

“Sinister also are the continual differences between Schuschnigg
and Starhemberg....” and so on.

Now, isn’t it correct, Defendant, that anyone, that everyone, even a visiting monarchist agent, knew that these activities were going on with you on the top and the Austrian National Socialist Party working underneath?

Before you answer, it is only fair to look at your own comment on that.

“The difficulties of the internal Austrian situation could
hardly be described more graphically than in this letter.”

Why did you not say to Hitler, if these were the facts: “Baron Gudenus is talking nonsense. I am carrying out a perfectly honest moral assignment for the normalizing of relations with Austria.” Why did you not deny it, if it was not true?

VON PAPEN: It seems to me that this report shows, in the first place, that I passed on to Hitler with complete frankness all the reports which I received, even that of an adherent of the Hapsburg restoration. Obviously to 100 percent...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am suggesting, Defendant, that you passed them on because they were true; you adopted them and passed them on to Hitler because they were true reports; that that was a true picture of the situation. That is what I am suggesting to you. You just tell the Tribunal, were they true or were they not? If they were not true, why did you pass them on without saying they were not true? That is what I am asking you.

VON PAPEN: If you read this report by Baron Gudenus, you will see that he speaks of internal conditions in Austria and of the sinister differences existing between Schuschnigg and Starhemberg, the rivalry between their guards, and the constant underground Republican sentiment.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that is 3 lines out of 20. There is a lot more before you come to that part. That is what I am asking you about; the other 17 lines of the report.

VON PAPEN: Sir David, the points which I have just mentioned are proof of the internal weaknesses of the Austrian Government, on which I am reporting. If you mean that I should have explained to Hitler that I was not a “brown” agent, well surely on 26 July we came to a very clear agreement as to under what conditions my work in Austria was to be done. There was no necessity for me to explain that to Hitler in a report. I sent this report for his information only.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If that is your explanation, just look at the next paragraph of your letter. It shows in another way how you were working. Paragraph 3:

“The film ‘The Old and the Young King’ ...”—the Tribunal may not remember, but you correct my recollection. That is a film, if I remember rightly, dealing with Friedrich—the relations of Friedrich Wilhelm I and Friedrich the Great. Am I right?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “The film ‘The Old and the Young King’
was shown here for the first time a few days ago in the presence
of Herr Jannings.”—That is Emil Jannings, the actor.—“It
provoked enthusiastic demonstrations. The scene where the king
stresses the fact that ‘French trash and Roman books do not mean
anything to Prussia’ led to particularly vociferous applause.
The police wanted to ban it. Together with Herr Jannings, we
explained to them that, should this film be banned, we would
take steps to prohibit the showing of all Austrian films in
Germany. This had the desired effect. The film—except for the
above-mentioned scene, which was expunged—is being shown now
and will be shown on the screen at Klagenfurt and Graz within
the next few days.

“Yesterday I received Jannings and a number of actors from the
Burgtheater as my guests. He said he was very satisfied with his
success, and we discussed in detail plans for a Bismarck picture
for the production of which I recommended Beumelburg to write
the script.”

That is, you were forcing a film which contained Prussian propaganda to be shown in Austria on the threat of excluding Fräulein Wessely and “Maskerade” and the other Austrian films of that time from the German market; you were forcing your propaganda on the threat of excluding Austrian films; is that right?

VON PAPEN: Yes, and I will also tell you the reason. I must enlarge your historical knowledge of these things, Sir David. Frederick the Great played a very important part in the relations between Germany and Austria, as you know; and at that time we were trying, in the relationship between our two countries, to clear up the historical inaccuracies which originated in the time of Frederick the Great. For this purpose the famous Austrian historian, Professor Srbik, wrote a big work. The film which we are discussing served the purpose of showing that a great German history is common to both peoples alike. To help the cultural _rapprochement_ of the two countries I insisted that this film should be shown, and this was done.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not the slightest doubt about your motives in wanting the film to be shown, Defendant, but what I am asking you is, why you pressed it against the wish of the Austrian authorities by threat of excluding Austrian film production from the German market? Why did you threaten the Austrian authorities in that way?

VON PAPEN: It frequently happened that the Austrian police were afraid that certain films might be made a basis for demonstrations. But after we had talked matters over with the police, and had agreed that certain parts of the film should be cut, they were quite ready to admit it; and of course, I also told them that if we did not reach an agreement, the consequences would be that Germany would send no more films to Austria.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, again I put the point. Do you remember telling the Tribunal that you did not keep up contacts with the NSDAP in Austria? Is that Correct?

VON PAPEN: No, it is not correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You did keep up contacts?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Close contacts?

VON PAPEN: I did not understand.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Intimate contacts? Were your contacts close?

VON PAPEN: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if they were not, will you just turn a page back. It is probably Page 72 of your report. It is the same report.

My Lord, it is Page 93 of Your Lordship’s book.

You began that report by saying:

“I have first to report on the development of the local NSDAP:

“On 23 March complete agreement was reached in Krems between
Captain Leopold, (Retd.) and Generaldirektor Neubacher. In
accordance therewith, Neubacher subordinated himself to Leopold
in every way and recognized him as Führer for Austria. As soon
as Schattenfroh is released from the concentration camp, he will
become deputy leader, while Neubacher, as the closest confidant
of Leopold, will be consulted on every important question.”

Furthermore, Leopold has nominated somebody else and asked him to be deputy, while:

“Major General Klupp, (Retd.) will be taken into consultation in
strict confidence,” and I want to read the last lines:

“Furthermore, Leopold expressed the desire that at long last,
the continual intrigues against him on the part of _émigrés_
living in the Reich—of the type of Frauenfeld and his
friends—be stopped.”

That is a pretty complete picture of the set-up of the Party in Austria, wasn’t it?

VON PAPEN: Well, Sir David, may I call to your attention the fact that this report is dated 4 April 1935, a date previous to the July Agreement, when my interest in these Party affairs can still be readily understood.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, if you attach importance to the date, just look at the report of 1 September 1936, which is on Page 33 of Document