Chapter III: Front Matter (3)

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I put it this way: Up to October 10, 1935, what did you tell the Tribunal was the most serious thing that Hitler had ordered you to do and you had refused to carry out? What was the most serious—the one that mattered most?

VON NEURATH: Well on the spur of the moment, that is a question that I cannot answer. How should I know what the most serious question was which I opposed? I opposed all sorts of things.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you can’t remember what you think is the most serious, I shan’t trouble you with it any more, but I want...

VON NEURATH: Well, you are quite welcome to submit it to me, but don’t produce an allegation out of a clear sky without giving me the chance to refute it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was asking you to tell us, but I will pass on to what another American diplomat put. I would like to ask you about Mr. Bullitt’s report, with which I gather you agree. My Lord, that is L-150, and it is at Page 72 of the Document Book 12.

My Lord, I hope that there is no difference of the paging—72 of mine.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes; it is 74.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, it is 74. I am sorry, My Lord.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Now, it is the second paragraph there. After saying that he had a talk with you, he says:

“Von Neurath said that it was the policy of the German
Government to do nothing active in foreign affairs until ‘the
Rhineland had been digested.’ He explained that he meant that
until the German fortifications had been constructed on the
French and Belgian frontiers, the German Government would do
everything possible to prevent rather than encourage an outbreak
by the Nazis in Austria and would pursue a quiet line with
regard to Czechoslovakia. ‘As soon as our fortifications are
constructed and the countries of Central Europe realize that
France cannot enter German territory at will, all those
countries will begin to feel very differently about their
foreign policies and a new constellation will develop...’”

You agree you said that?

VON NEURATH: Yes, yes, certainly. Yesterday or the day before I testified in detail about what that was supposed to mean. Moreover, it does not make any difference.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would like to see if you agree with the meaning I suggest. That is that as soon as you had got your fortifications in sufficiently good order on your western frontier, you would proceed to try and secure an Anschluss with Austria and to get back the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. Isn’t that what it means?

VON NEURATH: No, no, not at all. That is quite clear in the document. What I meant by this and what I expressed was that these countries, particularly Czechoslovakia and France, would change their policy toward Germany, because they could no longer march through Germany so easily.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You appreciate, Defendant, what I am putting to you? I think I made it quite clear—that at the time that you were facing the Western Powers with the remilitarization of Germany and the Rhineland—that is in 1935 and 1936—you were then giving assurances to Austria, which Hitler did in May 1935, and you made this treaty in 1936. As soon as you had digested your first steps, you then turned against Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938. I am suggesting, you see, that you were talking the exact truth and prophesying with a Cassandra-like accuracy. That is what I am suggesting—that you knew very well that these intentions were there.

VON NEURATH: What?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say you didn’t?

VON NEURATH: Not at all, not at all, not at all! That is an assumption on your part, for which there is absolutely no proof.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will not argue it further because we will come on to just one other point before we proceed to 1937.

You have told the Tribunal, not once but many times, that you did not support the Nazi attitude toward the Christian churches, of oppressing the churches. That is I have understood you correctly, have I not?

VON NEURATH: Yes, indeed.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, and you say that you resisted and actively intervened against the repression of the Church. Would you just look at Document 3758-PS.

My Lord, that will become Exhibit GB-516. My Lord, Your Lordship will find it in Document Book 12a, Page 81.

[_Turning to the defendant._] This is an entry which must have been fairly early in 1936 in the diary of the Reich Minister of Justice:

“The Reich Foreign Minister transmits, with a personal note for
confidential information, a letter from Cardinal State Secretary
Pacelli”—that is the present Pope—“to the German Ambassador in
the Vatican, in which he urges an act of pardon for Vicar
General Seelmeyer. He, the Reich Foreign Minister, remarks to
this that after the heavy attacks on German justice by the Holy
See in the note of 29 January, there is no reason in his opinion
to show any deference to the Vatican. He recommends it, however,
since for foreign policy reasons it is to our interest not to
let our good personal relations with Pacelli cool off.”

Now, Defendant, will you tell me anything that showed the slightest personal interest in the fate of Father Seelmeyer, or were you only concerned with showing a firm front to the Vatican and not losing your good relations with Cardinal Pacelli?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, the document has just been submitted to me; I have had no opportunity whatsoever to look this document over and inform myself about it. Likewise, I do not know of there having been any talk about a diary of the Reich Minister of Justice up to now in this Trial. Therefore, I am not in a position to judge how the Reich Minister of Justice could have made this entry in his diary at all.

Since these notes have apparently been taken out of their context, it is not possible for me to form any kind of a picture of the significance of the entry as a whole, and naturally it is even less possible for the defendant to do so.

Therefore, I must protest against the admissibility of this question and against the submission of this document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is a perfectly good captured document. It is a copy of the original diary of the Reich Minister of Justice, and it is therefore admissible against the defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Lüdinghausen, you can see the original document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, actually, I am just told by my American colleagues that this diary has been used before, that extracts were put in in the case against the Defendant Von Schirach.

VON NEURATH: Mr. President, I have no objection...

THE PRESIDENT: One moment.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I could not understand a word, Mr. President. I am sorry, I could not understand. I can hear now.

THE PRESIDENT: When you make an objection, you should see that the instrument is in order.

What I said was that you can see the original document. And I am told now that the original document has been used before, and that therefore there is nothing to prevent its being used in cross-examination. It is a captured document, and you can see the original.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I did not know that, Mr. President.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I am putting to you, Defendant, is that your statement to the Minister of Justice shows no concern for the individual priest about whom the complaint had been made; it is merely concerned with your relations with the Vatican and with Cardinal Pacelli, as he then was. Is that typical of your interferences? Is this typical of your interferences for the sake of ill-treated priests?

VON NEURATH: I naturally cannot remember this case any more, but the way it stands there in the entry I was perfectly justified. According to the entry, I said that we had no reason to show any special consideration after the then Cardinal State Secretary, or Pope had attacked German justice, but that, as Foreign Minister I considered it important not to disturb our relations with Pacelli. I cannot see what conclusions you want to draw from this.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I don’t want to trespass on the ground of my Soviet colleagues, but you know that the Czech report accuses you, with complete impartiality as far as sect is concerned, of your Government ill-treating the Catholics, Protestants, Czech National Church, and even the Greek Church in Czechoslovakia. You know that all these churches suffered during your protectorate—do you agree that all these churches suffered under your protectorate?

VON NEURATH: No, not at all.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: All right, I won’t go into the details, but I am suggesting to you that your care about the various religious confessions did not go very deep.

VON NEURATH: That is again an assertion on your part which you cannot prove.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I would just like to put one thing. You remember telling the Tribunal this morning of the excellent terms that you were on with the archbishop of Prague?

VON NEURATH: I said that I had good relations with the archbishop.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would just like you to look at this copy.

My Lord, this is a copy, but General Ecer assures me that he can get the original from the Czech Government files. I received it only a half hour ago. General Ecer, who is here from Czechoslovakia, says that he can vouch for the original.

I’d like the defendant to look at it. Is that a letter which you received from the archbishop?

My Lord, it is Document D-920, and it will be Exhibit GB-517:

“Your Excellency, very esteemed Herr Protector of the Reich:

“Your last letter has filled me with such sorrow because I could
not but gather from it that not even Your Excellency is prepared
to believe me—that I lost consciousness and had to call
university Professor Dr. Jirasek, who remained beside my sickbed
for an hour—he is coming again today, together with the
specialist on internal diseases....”

And then he gives his name.

“Your Excellency may be sure that I shall always do what I can
to please you. But please, have mercy on me, too, and do not
demand that I should act against the laws of the Church.

“Yours, _et cetera_, Karl Cardinal Kaspar, M. P. prince
archbishop.”

Do you remember that?

VON NEURATH: I cannot say what this refers to. I have no idea; there is nothing in it, and I cannot tell you what it referred to.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You can’t remember this occasion when the prince archbishop wrote to you and told you the effect, the illness that he had suffered from and beseeched you not to ask him to do something against the laws of the Church? It doesn’t remain in your mind at all, does it?

VON NEURATH: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: All right, we’ll leave that. Well now, I want you to just tell me this, before we pass on to the later occurrences in 1937. You remember you dealt yesterday with your speech—I think it was to the German Academy of Law. You remember the speech, in August of 1937? I can give you a reference. Would you like to look at it?

VON NEURATH: I only need the reference to where I spoke.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You remember it, I only wanted to save time. Don’t you remember? I will put it to you if you like. It is the speech of the 29th of August 1937, and I will give you the reference in one moment. What I wanted to ask you was this—you said:

“The unity of the racial and national will created through
Nazism with unprecedented élan has made possible a foreign
policy by means of which the chains of the Versailles Treaty
were broken.”

What did you mean by “the unity of the racial will” produced by Nazism?

VON NEURATH: By that I probably meant that all Germans were unified more than ever before. At this date I can no longer tell you what I meant by this, either. But nevertheless I was merely establishing a fact.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. Now tell me. That was in August 1937. You told the Tribunal the effect that the words of Hitler, on the 5th of November 1937, had upon you, and your counsel has put in the statement by Baroness von Ritter. After these words...

VON NEURATH: In November?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, November of 1937.

VON NEURATH: Yes, indeed.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, after these words had had that effect, with whom did you discuss them among the people who had been present at the Hossbach interview?

VON NEURATH: This speech was not made at Berchtesgaden at all. That is a mistake; it was at Berlin, this address.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I didn’t say Berchtesgaden; I said at the Hossbach conference. We call it the Hossbach conference because he took the minutes.

VON NEURATH: I have already told you yesterday with whom I spoke, General Von Fritsch, and with Beck, who was then Chief of the General Staff; and I also testified that we agreed at that time jointly to oppose Hitler and the tendency which he had revealed in this speech.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you speak about it to Hitler?

VON NEURATH: Yes. I testified yesterday in detail that I did not have a chance to speak with Hitler until 14 or 15 January, because he had left Berlin and I could not see him. That was the very reason why I asked for my resignation at that time.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you speak about it to Göring or Raeder?

VON NEURATH: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now I want you to just tell me one word or two about this Secret Cabinet Council to which you were appointed after you left the Foreign Office.

Would you look at the first sentences of the report of that meeting on the 5th of November?

My Lord, it is Page 81 in the English Document Book 12, and Page 93 of the German document book.

It is only the first two sentences, Defendant:

“The Führer stated initially that the subject matter of today’s
conference was of such importance that its detailed discussion
would certainly, in other states, take place before the Cabinet
in full session. However, he, the Führer, had decided not to
discuss this matter in the larger circle of the Reich Cabinet
because of its importance.”

Then, if you will look at the people who were there: There is the Führer; the Minister for War; the three Commanders-in-Chief; and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Now, Defendant, supposing that in February or March 1938, Hitler had wanted to discuss Austria before the same Council, the same limited number of people. Just let us see who would have taken the places of the people who were there. Instead of Von Blomberg and Von Fritsch, you would have had the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW, and Von Brauchitsch as Commander-in-Chief, would you not?

VON NEURATH: Yes, I believe so.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As a matter of fact, Raeder and Göring maintained their positions; the Defendant Von Ribbentrop had taken yours; and you were president of the Secret Cabinet Council. Lammers was secretary of the Cabinet, and Goebbels had become more important as Minister of Propaganda.

Well now, I would just like you to look and see who the people were that formed the Secret Cabinet Council.

Your Lordship will find that on Page 8 of Document Book 12; and it is Page 7 of the German document book.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Now, do you see who they are? There are the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, the Defendant Göring, the Führer’s Deputy, Hess, Dr. Goebbels, and the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers, Von Brauchitsch, Raeder, and Keitel. You are saying, if I understand you, that this Secret Cabinet Council had no real existence at all. Is that your case?

VON NEURATH: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Why were you receiving special funds for getting diplomatic information as president of the Secret Cabinet Council?

VON NEURATH: I did not receive any. I should like to know...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, didn’t you?

VON NEURATH: No.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, let us just have a look at this. Would you look at Document 3945-PS?

My Lord, it is 129 in Document Book 12a. It will be Exhibit GB-518.

If you will look at the letter of the 28th of August 1939 from Lammers to you:

“In conformity with your request, I have had the sum of 10,000
Reichsmark, which had been placed at your disposal for special
expenses in connection with the obtaining of diplomatic
information, handed to Amtsrat Köppen.

“I enclose the draft of a certificate showing how the money was
used, with the request to send me the certificate after
execution, at the latest by the end of the financial year.”

And if you will turn over to the next page, 131, you will see that at the end of March, which was toward the end of the financial year, you signed a certificate saying:

“I have received 10,000 Reichsmark from the Reich Chancellery
for special outlays entailed in obtaining diplomatic
information.”

Now, will you tell us why you were getting special expenses for obtaining diplomatic information?

VON NEURATH: Yes, I can tell you that. That is an expression used at the request of Lammers who had the treasury of the Reich Chancellery under him, so that I could meet the expenses of my office; that is, for one typist and for one secretary. And in order to justify this to—I do not know which authority, what this authority is called, to the Finance Ministry—I had no special budget—Herr Lammers asked me to use this expression. That can be seen from a certificate which is also in there.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is all right. I am going to refer to the other letters. But why was it necessary that the expenses of your one secretary and one typist should not be audited? As it shows on pages...

My Lord, the pages are 134 and 135.

VON NEURATH: I just said that...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On Page 134 you will see there is a letter from you to Lammers: “In my bureau there is a need to incur special expenses, to audit which it does not appear to me advisable.”

Why wasn’t it advisable to audit the expenses of your typist and secretary?

VON NEURATH: I can no longer tell you that just now. But at any rate, I did not use any more money for diplomatic information; but these are merely office expenses which I figured in there. And so at the end of this letter which you have submitted to me there is...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now...

VON NEURATH: Please, let me finish my statement.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.

VON NEURATH: There is a report here to me, from my—from this secretary, in which he says—no, this is not the letter I thought it was.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, if you are finished, I anticipated you might say it was office expenses. Would you look at Document 3958-PS?

My Lord, that will be Exhibit GB-519.

[_Turning to the defendant._] I submit, that shows you your office expenses were carried on the ordinary budget, the letter of 8 April 1942 to you.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that in the book?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, yes; I am so sorry. It is 140. I beg Your Lordship’s pardon.

[_Turning to the defendant._] That is a letter to you which says:

“The Reich Minister for Finance has agreed that the budgetary
needs announced by you for the financial year 1942 be shown in
Special Plan 1. I therefore have no objections to having the
necessary expenditure granted—even before the establishment of
Special Plan I—within the limits of these amounts, namely:

“For personal administrative expenditures, up to 28,500
Reichsmark; for official administrative expenditures, up to
25,500 Reichsmark; total 54,000 Reichsmark.”

That was providing for your office and personal expenditures during the same period for which you were getting these additional sums. So I am suggesting to you that if these sums of 10,000 marks which you got every now and then were not for office expenditures, I would like you to tell the Tribunal what they really were for.

VON NEURATH: Yes, I would be very pleased if I were also told about this, for I no longer know.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, they are your letters, and you got the money. Can’t you tell the Tribunal what you got it for?

VON NEURATH: No, I cannot right now. Perhaps I can tell you afterward.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Possibly it was for obtaining diplomatic information, it says—

My Lord, Dr. Von Lüdinghausen makes the point that the letter I put was in 1939. Of course, there were other letters. I have not troubled the Tribunal with each one, but there is another letter in which there is a reference to a payment on the 9th of May 1941, and, of course, another reference to a payment on the 30th of June 1943. My Lord, these are Pages 133 and 134. I am sorry; I did not give the details. Perhaps I ought to have indicated that.

THE PRESIDENT: The letter on Page 137, which may have some bearing, is a letter from the man signed “K”—from the man who made the previous applications?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.

Perhaps would you like to look at that, Defendant? It is Document 3945-PS, a letter of the 14th of July 1943, signed “K”:

“When I went into the matter of the special funds, the competent
people in the Reich Chancellery showed an entirely understanding
attitude in this matter and asked for a written application from
Your Excellency. When I replied that I did not wish to produce
such an application before success was guaranteed, they asked
for a little more time for a further exchange of views. After a
few days I was told that I could produce the application without
hesitation, upon which I handed over the letter which I had
previously withheld. The amount requested has been handed to me
today and I have duly entered this sum in my special cashbook as
a credit.”

VON NEURATH: Yes, but in spite of this...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now does that help you? Can you tell the Tribunal what were the outlays, the special outlays for the obtaining of diplomatic information for which you received this money?

VON NEURATH: I am very sorry; I absolutely cannot—I can no longer recall this matter at all. And the remarkable part is that this letter is dated the 14th of July 1943, when I no longer had any functions whatsoever, when I had left altogether. At this moment, I do not know.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is very strange, you know. In a further letter, in Document 3958-PS, on 8 January 1943, and in succeeding letters on the 4th of March and the 20th of April, the end of your occupation of the premises of 23 Rheinbabenallee is explained there and when your expenses ceased when you went to live in the country. I was just going to ask you about that—a little about that house. If you will just look at the affidavit of Mr. Geist, the American consul...

My Lord, that is Document 1759-PS, Exhibit USA-420.

[_Turning to the defendant._] I referred to this this morning, and the passage that I want you to tell us about is in the middle of a paragraph.

My Lord, it is at the foot of Page 11 of the affidavit in the English version.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the separate document?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, it is at the foot of Page 11. The paragraph begins:

“Another instance of the same nature occurred with regard to my
landlord...”

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if Your Lordship goes on another 10 lines, after explaining about his landlord having to give up his house to the SS, he says:

“I know that on many occasions where it was thought necessary to
increase the pressure, the prospective purchaser or his agent
would appear accompanied by a uniformed SA or SS man. I know
because I lived in the immediate neighborhood and knew the
individuals concerned, that Baron von Neurath, one time Foreign
Minister of Germany, got his house from a Jew in this manner.
Indeed, he was my next-door neighbor in Dahlem. Von Neurath’s
house was worth approximately 250,000 dollars.”

[_Turning to the defendant._] Was that 23 Rheinbabenallee?

VON NEURATH: Yes, yes...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Who acquired it for you, so that the president of the nonexistent Secret Cabinet Council could have it as an official residence? Who acquired it?

VON NEURATH: I did not understand that. Who did what?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Who acquired 23 Rheinbabenallee? Who got it?

VON NEURATH: I can tell you about that. In the year 1937, when Hitler was erecting the large buildings for his Reich Chancellery, he told me one day that I would have to move from my apartment, which was situated behind the Foreign Office, because he wanted the garden for his Reich Chancellery, and the house would be torn down.

He said that he had given instructions to the Reich Building Administration to find other living quarters for me. The Reich Building Administration offered me various expropriated Jewish residences. But I refused them. But now I had to look for a house myself, and my personal physician, to whom I happened to mention this matter, told me that he knew of a place in Dahlem, that was Number 23 Rheinbabenallee, where he was house physician to the owner. This owner was Lieutenant Colonel Glotz, who was the brother of a close friend of mine. I informed the Reich Building Administration about this and told them that they should get in touch with this gentleman. In the course of the negotiations, which were conducted by the Reich Building Administration, a contract of sale was drawn up for the price quoted by Mr. Geist, and the price was in marks, not in dollars. This sum, at the request of Lieutenant Colonel Glotz, was paid to him in cash, and on his wish I persuaded the Finance Minister to have this money transferred to Switzerland.

I might remark that I was still Foreign Minister at the time. Afterward, I remained in this house for the simple reason that I did not find another one, and Herr Von Ribbentrop, my successor, moved into the old Presidential Palace.

Then in the year 1943 this house was destroyed. At the moment, therefore, I still cannot explain what these moneys were for and whether they were official payments made by the Reich Treasury. With the best intentions, I cannot tell you. But the statements made by Mr. Geist here are completely wrong as I have just stated. I did not buy or have this house transferred from a Jew, but from the Christian Lieutenant Colonel Glotz.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You tell us that you passed the money on to Switzerland on his account?

VON NEURATH: I? Yes. Because Herr—Herr Glotz went to Switzerland. I believe, indeed, his wife was non-Aryan.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I see. I would just like to put the next sentence and then I will leave this document:

“I know too that Alfred Rosenberg, who lived in the same street
with me, purloined a house from a Jew in similar fashion.”

Do you know anything of that?

VON NEURATH: I do not know how Herr Rosenberg acquired his house.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, Defendant, I want you to come now to March of 1938. Perhaps I can take this shortly if I have understood you correctly. You know that the Prosecution complained about your reply to the British Ambassador with regard to the Anschluss. As I understand you, you are not now suggesting that your reply was accurate; but you are saying that that was the best of your information at the time, is that right?

VON NEURATH: Yes, that is quite correct. It is true. That was an incorrect statement but I just did not know any better; do you see?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say that you did not hear—that neither Hitler nor Göring told you a word about these ultimatums which were given first of all to Herr Von Schuschnigg and secondly to President Miklas; you were told nothing about that? Is that what you are telling?

VON NEURATH: No, at that time—at that time I knew nothing. I heard about them later.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am going to leave that. I am not going into that incident in detail—we have been over it several times—in view of the way that the defendant is not contesting the accuracy.

THE PRESIDENT: I should like to know when he heard of the true facts.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am much obliged.

[_Turning to the defendant._] When did you hear of the true facts of the Anschluss?

VON NEURATH: I heard the details for the very first time here, when this report of Legation Counsellor Hewel was submitted to me. Prior to this time I probably heard that there had been pressure exerted on Herr Schuschnigg, but nothing else. I actually learned the exact details for the first time here in Nuremberg.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I only want to get it quite clear. You say that between the 11th of March and your coming to Nuremberg, you never heard anything about the threat of marching into Austria, which had been made by the Defendant Göring, or Keppler, or General Muff on his behalf? You never heard anything about that?

VON NEURATH: No, I heard nothing of that sort.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, then I do want to ask you about the assurance that you gave to M. Mastny, the Czechoslovak Minister in Berlin. I would like you to look at Document TC-27 which you will find in Document Book 12, Page 123 of Document Book 12. The passage that I want to ask you about is in the sixth paragraph. After dealing with the conversation with the Defendant Göring about the Czechoslovak mobilization, it goes on:

“M. Mastny was in a position to give him definite and binding
assurances on this subject”—that is, the Czechoslovak
mobilization—“and today”—that is, the 12th of March—“spoke
with Baron von Neurath, who, among other things, assured him on
behalf of Herr Hitler that Germany still considers herself bound
by the German-Czechoslovak Arbitration Convention concluded at
Locarno in October 1925.”

Now, you have told the Tribunal—we have had the evidence of Baroness von Ritter—that the meeting on the 5th of November had this very disturbing effect on you and in fact produced a bad heart attack. One of the matters that was discussed at that meeting was attack, not only on Austria but also on Czechoslovakia, to protect the German flank. Why did you think, on the 12th of March, that Hitler would ever consider himself bound by the German-Czechoslovak Arbitration Treaty which meant that he had to refer any dispute with Czechoslovakia to the Council of the League of Nations or the International Court of Justice? Why on earth did you think that that was even possible, that Hitler would submit a dispute with Czechoslovakia to either of these bodies?

VON NEURATH: I can tell you that quite exactly. I already testified yesterday that Hitler had me summoned to him on the 11th for reasons that I cannot explain up to this day and told me that the march into Austria was to take place during the night. In reply to my question, or rather to my remark that that would cause great uneasiness in Czechoslovakia, he said that he had no intentions of any kind at this time against Czechoslovakia and that he was—he even hoped that relations with Czechoslovakia would be considerably improved by the invasion or occupation of Austria.

From this sentence and from his promise that nothing would happen, I concluded that matters would remain as they were and that, of course, we were still bound to this treaty of 1925. Therefore, I was able to assure M. Mastny of this with an absolutely clear conscience.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did you believe a word that Hitler said on the 12th of March? Did you still believe a word that Hitler said on the 12th of March 1933?

VON NEURATH: Yes, still at that time.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought Von Fritsch was a friend of yours; wasn’t he?

VON NEURATH: Who?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Colonel General Von Fritsch; he was a friend of yours?

VON NEURATH: Yes, indeed.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You did not believe that he had been guilty of homosexuality did you?

VON NEURATH: No, never.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, didn’t they—didn’t you know that he had been subject in January 1938 to a framed-up charge?

THE PRESIDENT: Will you please answer instead of shaking your head.

VON NEURATH: Yes, I knew that, of course; and I learned of it and the fact that this charge was a fabrication of the Gestapo but not of Hitler, at least in my opinion.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, didn’t you know that those—these unsavory matters concerning Field Marshal Von Blomberg and Colonel General Von Fritsch had been faked up by members of the Nazi gang, who were your colleagues in the Government?

VON NEURATH: Yes. The details were unknown to me, of course.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see, you remember that at the time of Munich, when you came back to the field—came back into activity for some time, President Beneš did appeal to this German-Czechoslovak Arbitration Convention and Hitler brushed the appeal to one side. Do you remember that? In September 1938?

VON NEURATH: No; that, I do not know, for at that time I was not in office any longer and I did not get to see these matters at all. I do not know about that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, you don’t know; of course, it was in the German press and every other press that he appealed to this treaty and Hitler refused to look at it; but you say that you honestly believed on the 12th of March that Hitler would stand by that Arbitration Treaty; that’s what you said?

VON NEURATH: Yes, I had no misgivings.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that might be a convenient moment to break off.

[_A recess was taken._]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, you spoke yesterday with regard to the memorandum of Lieutenant General Friderici. Do you remember in that memorandum he referred to a memorandum of yours on how to deal with Czechoslovakia?

Well, now, I would like you just to look at Document 3859-PS, so that the Tribunal can see your attitude toward the Czechs from your own words.

My Lord, that is at Page 107 of Document Book 12a.

[_Turning to the defendant._] I will read first your letter to Lammers of the 31st of August 1940.

My Lord, that will be Exhibit GB-520.

[_Turning to the defendant._] You say:

“Dear Herr Lammers: Enclosed I send you the memorandum which I
mentioned in advance in my letter of 13 July 1940 ... about the
question of the future organization of the Bohemian-Moravian
country. I enclose another memorandum on the same question,
which my Secretary of State K. H. Frank has drawn up
independently of me and which, in its train of thoughts, leads
to the same result”—I ask you to note, the next words—“and
with which I fully agree. Please present both memoranda to the
Führer and arrange a date for a personal interview for myself
and State Secretary Frank. As I have heard from a private source
that individual Party and other offices intend to submit
proposals to the Führer for separating various parts of the
Protectorate under my authority, without my knowing these
projects in detail, I should be grateful to you if you would
arrange the date for my interview early enough for me, as the
competent Reich Protector and one who understands the Czech
problem, to have an opportunity, together with my State
Secretary, to place our opinions before the Führer before all
sorts of plans are suggested to him by other people.”

Now, I would just like to take what I hope will be the gist of your own memorandum. If you will turn it over—this is your memorandum—take the first paragraph, Section I:

“Any considerations about the future organization of Bohemia and
Moravia must be based on the goal which is to be laid down for
that territory from a state-political (staatspolitisch) and
ethnic-political (volkspolitisch) point of view.

“From a state-political standpoint there can be but one aim:
total incorporation into the Greater German Reich; from an
ethnic-political standpoint to fill this territory with
Germans.”

And then you say that you point the path; and if you go on to Section II, in the middle of Paragraph 2, you will find a subparagraph beginning—

My Lord, it is the top of Page 109, Your Lordship’s copy:

“These 7.2 million Czechs, of whom 3.4 millions live in towns
and communities of under 2,000 and in the country, are led and
influenced by an intelligentsia which is unduly puffed up in
proportion to the size of the country. This part of the
population also tried, after the alteration of the
constitutional situation of this area, more or less openly to
sabotage or at any rate postpone necessary measures which were
intended to fit the circumstances of the country to the new
state of affairs. The remainder of the population, that is small
craftsmen, peasants, and workmen, adapted themselves better to
the new conditions.”

Then, if you go on to Paragraph 3, you say:

“But it would be a fatal mistake to conclude from this that the
Government and population behaved in this correct manner because
they had inwardly accepted the loss of their independent state,
and incorporation into Greater Germany. The Germans continue to
be looked upon as unwelcome intruders and there is a widespread
longing for a return to the old state of affairs, even if the
people do not express it openly.

“By and large, the population submit to the new conditions but
they do so only because they either have the necessary rational
insight or else because they fear the consequences of
disobedience. They certainly do not do so from conviction. This
will be the state of affairs for some time to come.

“But”—go on to Section III—“as things are like that, a
decision will have to be taken as to what is to be done with the
Czech people in order to attain the objective of incorporating
the country and filling it with Germans as quickly as possible
and as thoroughly as possible.

“The most radical and theoretically complete solution to the
problem would be to evacuate all Czechs completely from this
country and replace them by Germans.”

Then you say that that is not possible because there are not sufficient Germans to fill it immediately.

Then, if you go on to Paragraph 2, to the second half, you say—My Lord, that is the last six lines of Page 110:

“It will, where the Czechs are concerned, rather be a case on
the one hand of keeping those Czechs who are suitable for
Germanization by individual selective breeding, while on the
other hand of expelling those who are not useful from a racial
standpoint or are enemies of the Reich, that is, the
intelligentsia which has developed in the last 20 years. If we
use such a procedure, Germanization can be carried out
successfully.”

Now, Defendant, you know that in the Indictment in this Trial we are charging you and your fellow defendants, among many other things, with genocide, which we say is the extermination of racial and national groups, or, as it has been put in the well-known book of Professor Lemkin, “a co-ordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.” What you wanted to do was to get rid of the teachers and writers and singers of Czechoslovakia, whom you call the intelligentsia, the people who would hand down the history and traditions of the Czech people to other generations. These were the people that you wanted to destroy by what you say in that memorandum, were they not?

VON NEURATH: Not quite. Here there are...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But just before you answer, what did you mean by saying, in the last passage that I read to you, “...expelling those who are not useful from a racial standpoint or are enemies of the Reich, that is, the intelligentsia which has developed in the last 20 years”? Did you mean what you said? Were you speaking the truth when you said it was necessary to expel the intelligentsia?

VON NEURATH: To that I can answer only “yes” and “no.” First of all, I should like to say that from this report it becomes apparent that the memorandum was written by Frank. I joined my name to it, and this was on 31 August 1940. The memorandum which I—the memorandum which is referred to in the Friderici report is from a—is dated later I think, although I do not know offhand.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think you will find—I will give you, in a moment, the letter from Ziemke, who transmits Hitler’s view, and I think you will find that it is this memorandum that Hitler is dealing with. I will show you Frank’s memorandum in a moment. I am suggesting to you now, as you say to Lammers, that you enclosed your memorandum and you enclosed another memorandum, of which I will read you the essential part in a moment, which is the memorandum of Karl Hermann Frank. But this is a...

VON NEURATH: They are both by Frank.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I’ll show it—no; but look at your own letter of the 31st of August: “Enclosed I send you the memorandum,” and you go on: “I enclose another memorandum... which my State Secretary K. H. Frank has drawn up independently of me... with which I fully agree.” I am suggesting to you, you know that this is your—this is your memorandum referred to as the—in the Friderici document...

My Lord, that is Page 132 of Document Book 12.

[_Turning to the defendant._] ...where General Friderici says, “After ample deliberation the Reich Protector expressed his view about the various plans in a memorandum.” I am suggesting to you that this is your memorandum which you sent on to Lammers for submission to the Führer. Are you saying—are you really going to tell the Tribunal that this is not your memorandum?

VON NEURATH: No, I do not want to say that at all. At the moment I really do not know any longer. I did not write it, but I agreed with its contents; the letter to Lammers says so.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, if you agreed with its contents, what did you mean by saying that you would have to expel the intelligentsia, except that you were going to break down the Czechs as a national entity and expel the people who would keep going that history and tradition and language? Isn’t that why you wanted to expel the intelligentsia?

VON NEURATH: I never mentioned the word “destroy,” but said that the intelligentsia...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I said “expel”...

VON NEURATH: I see.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: ...which is your own word.

VON NEURATH: The class of the intelligentsia was the greatest obstacle to co-operation between Germans and Czechs. For that reason, if we wanted to achieve this co-operation, and that was still the aim of our policy, then this intelligentsia had to be reduced in some way and principally their influence had to be diminished, and that was the meaning of my explanation.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, you said to achieve your policy, but by achieving your policy you meant to destroy the Czech people as a national entity with their own language, history, and traditions, and assimilate them into the Greater German Reich. That was your policy, wasn’t it?

VON NEURATH: My policy was, first of all, to assimilate Czechoslovakia, as far as possible. But in the final analysis that could not have been achieved for generations. The first thing to do was to bring about co-operation so as to have peace and order.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now before I put to you the memorandum of Frank with which you entirely agree, would you look at Paragraph VII of your own memorandum?

My Lord, it is Page 113 of Document Book 12a.

[_Turning to the defendant._] In Section VII you say:

“If one considers the gigantic tasks facing the German nation
after a victorious war, the necessity for a careful and rational
utilization of Germans will be apparent to everyone. There are
so many tasks that have to be tackled at once and simultaneously
that a careful, well-thought-out utilization of the Germans who
are suitable for carrying out these tasks is necessary.

“The Greater German Reich will have to make use of the help of
foreigners on a large scale in all spheres and must confine
itself to appointing Germans to the key positions and to taking
over branches of public administration where the interests of
the Reich make it absolutely necessary...”

You were, in this memorandum, blueprinting the plans for dealing with the Czechs after the war on the basis of the German victory; that is, that they should disappear as a nation and become assimilated to the German Reich. Wasn’t that what was in your mind?

VON NEURATH: To make the Czechs disappear as a nation was altogether impossible. That was not possible at all. But they were to incorporate themselves more closely into the Reich, and that is what I mean by the word “assimilate.”

Moreover, it is also stated in this memorandum—earlier, much earlier—that from the racial point of view—if you want to use that unpleasant expression—there was an extraordinarily large number of Germans within Czechoslovakia.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, just turn over and see how the—your State Secretary’s memorandum with which you entirely agree—how that runs.

My Lord, Your Lordship will find the beginning of that is enclosure Number 2 on Page 115.

[_Turning to the defendant._] The State Secretary states his problem. He says, in the second sentence:

“The question as to whether the Protectorate, with a Reich
Protector as its head, is suitable for settling the Czech
problem and should therefore be retained or whether it should
now give place to some, other form of government is being raised
by various people and is the cause of this memorandum. It will
briefly: (A) Indicate the nature of the Czech problem; (B)
analyze the present way in which it is being dealt with; (C)
examine the proposed alterations from the point of view of their
suitability, and finally: (D) express an independent opinion on
the whole question.”

Well now, I would like you just to look at your State Secretary’s independent opinion with which you entirely agree.

THE PRESIDENT: Oughtn’t you to read the last two lines?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh yes, My Lord, I’m sorry.

“On a correct decision depends the solution of the Czech
problem. We thus bear the responsibility for centuries to come.”

Now, My Lord, Frank’s own opinion starts on Page 121 in Section D of the memorandum, and he begins by saying:

“The aim of Reich policy in Bohemia and Moravia must be the
complete Germanization of area and people. In order to attain
this there are two possibilities:

“I. The total evacuation of the Czechs from Bohemia and Moravia
to a territory outside the Reich and settling Germans in the
freed territory; or,

“II. If one leaves the majority of the Czechs in Bohemia and
Moravia the simultaneous application of a great variety of
methods working toward Germanization, in accordance with an
X-year plan.

“Such a Germanization provides for: 1) The changing of the
nationality of racially suitable Czechs; 2) the expulsion of
racially unassimilable Czechs and of the intelligentsia who are
enemies of the Reich, or ‘special treatment’ for these and all
destructive elements; 3) the recolonizing of the territory thus
freed with fresh German blood.”

Now, I want you just to turn to where your State Secretary gets down to concrete suggestions as to this policy of Germanization. Remember that you entirely agree, in your letter to Lammers.

If Your Lordship will turn to Page 123, there is a heading “Youth; fundamental change in education; extermination of the Czech historical myth.”

[_Turning to the defendant._] That is the first point: Destroy any idea they might have of their history, beginning with the time of St. Wenceslaus, nearly a thousand years ago. That is your first point.

“Education toward the Reich idea; no getting on without perfect
knowledge of the German language; first doing away with the
secondary schools, later also with the elementary schools; never
again any Czech universities, only transitionally the _Collegium
Bohemicum_ at the German university in Prague; 2 years
compulsory labor service.

“Large-scale land policy, creation of German strongpoints and
German bridges of land, in particular pushing forward of the
German national soil from the north to the suburbs of Prague.

“Campaign against the Czech language, which is to become merely
a dialect as in the 17th and 18th centuries, and which is to
disappear completely as an official language.

“Marriage policy after previous racial examination.

“In attempts at assimilation in the Reich proper, the frontier
Gaue must be excluded.

“Apart from continuous propaganda for Germanism and the granting
of advantages as an inducement, severest police methods, with
exile and ‘special treatment’ for all saboteurs. Principle:
‘Zuckerbrot und Peitsche.’”—What is that “Zuckerbrot und
Peitsche”?

“The employment of all these methods has a chance of success
only if a single central Reich authority with one man at its
head controls its planning, guiding, and carrying out. The
direct subordination of the ‘master in Bohemia’ to the Führer
clarifies the political character of the office and the task,
and prevents the political problem from sinking down to an
administrative problem.”

In other words, it was essential to this policy that you should keep your job as Reich Protector and Frank should keep his as State Secretary, and the Gauleiter of the Danube should not be able to interfere and take away Brno as the capital of his Gau.

Defendant, do you tell this High Tribunal, as you told Dr. Lammers, that you entirely agree with what I suggest to you are dreadful, callous, and unprincipled proposals? Do you agree with these proposals?

VON NEURATH: No, I do not agree in the least.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, why did you tell Lammers you did? Why, when things were going well, did you tell Lammers that you did agree with them?

VON NEURATH: Later I made an oral report to the Führer about this. Apart from that, the statements which you just made show quite clearly that this first memorandum was written by Frank, who then added the second memorandum to it, and if you say, as you said at the end just now, that it was my purpose to remain in office as Reich Protector, then I can only tell you that the purpose, if there was a purpose in this connection, was that Frank wanted to become Reich Protector. However, from the point of view of the contents of this memorandum, I can certainly no longer identify myself with them today, nor did I do so on the occasion when I reported to the Führer. This becomes clear from the testimony which I gave yesterday. This testimony...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I’m not concerned with your testimony yesterday; I am concerned with what you wrote in 1940 when you wrote—and I will read the words again; I have read them three times:

“I enclose another memorandum on the same question which my
State Secretary, K. H. Frank, has drawn up independently of
me”—independently of me—“and which in its train of thoughts
leads to the same result, and with which I fully agree.”

Why did you...

VON NEURATH: I have just now told you that I no longer agree with these statements today, and that at the time when I verbally reported to the Führer, I did not support these statements either, but to the contrary, I made the proposals to him which I explained yesterday and to which I received his agreement.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, are these documents correctly copied? Because you see that in the letter of the 31st of August 1940 there is a reference in the margin, “Enclosure 1; Enclosure 2.”

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Therefore, the letter identifies the document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, that is so. The one is, as I am suggesting, the defendant’s; the other is Frank’s.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you have mentioned, Defendant, about what—that you dealt with them otherwise to the Führer. I suggest to you that that is not true, that is not true that you dealt with them otherwise to the Führer. I am putting it quite bluntly that it is not true.