“For the operation suggested in the last Staff talks of the
Armed Forces, I lay down the code name ‘Schulung’”—training.—
“The supreme direction of Operation Schulung rests with the
Reich Minister of Defense as this is a joint undertaking of the
three services.
“Preparations for the operation will begin forthwith according
to the following directives:
“1. General.
“(1) The operation must, on issue of the code words ‘Carry out
Schulung’, be executed by a surprise blow at lightning speed.
Strictest secrecy is necessary in the preparations and only the
very smallest number of officers should be informed and employed
in the drafting of reports, drawings, _et cetera_, and these
officers only in person.
“(2) There is no time for mobilization of the forces taking
part. These will be employed in their peacetime strength and
with their peacetime equipment.
“(3) The preparation for the operation will be made without
regard to the present inadequate state of our armaments. Every
improvement of the state of our armaments will make possible a
greater measure of preparedness and thus result in better
prospects of success.”
The rest of the order deals with military details and I think it is
unnecessary to read it.
There are certain points, in the face of this order, which are
inconsistent with any theory that it was merely a training order, or
that it might have been defensive in nature. The operation was to be
carried out as a surprise blow at lightning speed (Schlagartig als
Überfall).
The air forces were to provide support for the attack. There was to be
reinforcement by the East Prussian division. Furthermore, this document
is dated 2 May 1935, which is about 6 weeks after the promulgation of
the Conscription Law on 16 March 1935, and so it could hardly have been
planned as a defensive measure against any expected sanctions which
might have been applied by reason of the passage of the Conscription
Law.
Of course the actual reoccupation of the Rhineland did not take place
until 7 March 1936, so that this early plan would necessarily have been
totally revised to suit the existing conditions and specific objectives.
As I say, although the plan does not mention the Rhineland, it has all
of the indications of a Rhineland operation plan. That the details of
this particular plan were not ultimately the ones that were carried out
in reoccupying the Rhineland does not at all detract from the vital fact
that as early as 2 May 1935 the Germans had already planned that
operation, not merely as a Staff plan but as a definite operation. It
was evidently not on their timetable to carry out the operation so soon
if it could be avoided. But they were prepared to do so, if necessary,
to resist French sanctions against their Conscription Law.
It is significant to note the date of this document is the same as the
date of the signature of the Franco-Russian Pact, which the Nazis later
asserted as their excuse for the Rhineland reoccupation.
The military orders on the basis of which the Rhineland reoccupation was
actually carried into execution, on 7 March 1936, were issued on 2 March
1936 by the War Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
Blomberg, and addressed to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army Fritsch,
the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Raeder, and Air Minister and
Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force Göring. We have that order signed by
Blomberg, headed, as usual, “top secret,” identified by us as C-159. I
offer it in evidence as Exhibit USA-54.
The German copy of that document bears the Defendant Raeder’s initial in
green pencil, with a red pencil note: “To be submitted to the C-in-C of
the Navy.”
The first part of the order reads:
“Supreme Command of the Navy:
“1. The Führer and Reich Chancellor has made the following
decision:
“By reason of the Franco-Russian Mutual Assistance Pact, the
obligations accepted by Germany in the Locarno Treaty, as far as
they apply to Articles 42 and 43, of the Treaty of Versailles
which referred to the demilitarized zone, are to be regarded as
obsolete.
“2. Sections of the Army and Air Force will therefore be
transferred simultaneously in a surprise move to garrisons of
the demilitarized zone. In this connection, I issue the
following orders. . . .”
There follow the detailed orders for the military operation.
We also have the orders for naval cooperation. The original German
document, which we identify as C-194, was issued on 6 March 1936, in the
form of an order on behalf of the Reich Minister for War, Blomberg,
signed by Keitel, and addressed to the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy
Raeder, setting out detailed instructions for the Commander-in-Chief of
the fleet and the admirals commanding the Baltic and North Sea. I offer
the document in evidence as Exhibit USA-55.
The short covering letter is as follows:
“To: C-in-C Navy.
“The Minister has decided the following after the meeting:
“1. The inconspicuous air reconnaissance in the German bay, not
over the line Texel-Doggerbank, from midday on Z-Day onward, has
been approved. C-in-C Air Force will instruct the Air Command VI
from midday 7 March to hold in readiness single reconnaissance
aircraft to be at the disposal of the C-in-C fleet.
“2. The Minister will reserve the decision to set up a U-boat
reconnaissance line until the evening of 7 March. The immediate
transfer of U-boats from Kiel to Wilhelmshafen has been
approved.
“3. The proposed advance measures for the most part exceed
Degree of Emergency A and therefore are out of the question as
the first countermeasures to be taken against military
preparations of neighboring states. It is far more essential to
examine the advance measures included in Degree of Emergency A,
to see whether one or other of the especially conspicuous
measures could not be omitted.”
That is signed “Keitel”.
The rest of the documents are detailed naval orders—operational
orders—and I think I need not read further.
For the historical emphasis of this occasion, Hitler made a momentous
speech on 7 March 1936. I have the volume of the _Völkischer
Beobachter_, Berlin, Sunday, 8 March 1936, our Document 2289-PS, which I
offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-56.
This is a long speech which the world remembers and of which I shall
only read a short portion:
“Men of the German Reichstag! France has replied to the repeated
friendly offers and peaceful assurances made by Germany by
infringing the Rhine Pact through a military alliance with the
Soviet Union exclusively directed against Germany. In this
manner, however, the Locarno Rhine Pact has lost its inner
meaning and ceased in practice to exist. Consequently, Germany
regards herself, for her part, as no longer bound by this
dissolved treaty. The German Government is now constrained to
face the new situation created by this alliance, a situation
which is rendered more acute by the fact that the Franco-Soviet
treaty has been supplemented by a Treaty of Alliance between
Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union exactly parallel in form. In
accordance with the fundamental right of a nation to secure its
frontiers and ensure its possibilities of defense, the German
Government has today restored the full and unrestricted
sovereignty of Germany in the demilitarized zone of the
Rhineland.”
The whole matter of the German reoccupation of the demilitarized zone of
the Rhineland caused extensive international repercussions and study. As
a result of the protests lodged with the League of Nations, the Council
of the League made an investigation and announced the following finding,
of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice, as being carried in
the _League of Nations Monthly Summary_, March 1936, Volume 16, Page 78;
and it is also quoted in an article by Quincy Wright, in the _American
Journal of International Law_, Page 487, 1936.
The finding is this:
“That the German Government has committed a breach of Article 43
of the Treaty of Versailles by causing, on March 7, 1936,
military forces to enter and establish themselves in the
demilitarized zone referred to, in Article 42 and the following
articles of that Treaty, and in the Treaty of Locarno.”
At the same time, on 7 March 1936, as the Germans reoccupied the
Rhineland in flagrant violation of the Versailles and Locarno Treaties,
they again tried to allay the fears of other European powers and lead
them into a false sense of security by announcing to the world: “We have
no territorial demands to make in Europe.”
That appears in this same speech of Hitler’s, which I have offered in
evidence as Exhibit USA-56, which is Document 2289-PS. The language will
be found on Page 6, Column 1:
“We have no territorial claims to make in Europe. We know above
all that all the tensions resulting either from false
territorial settlements or from the disproportion of the numbers
of inhabitants to their living spaces cannot, in Europe, be
solved by war.”
Most of the acts set forth in the paragraph of the Indictment which I
have been discussing, I think do not need judicial proof because they
are historical facts. We have been able to bring you a number of
interesting documents illuminating that history. The existence of prior
plans and preparations is indisputable from the very nature of things.
The method and sequence of these plans and their accomplishment are
clearly indicative of the progressing and increasingly aggressive
character of the Nazi objectives, international obligations and
considerations of humanity notwithstanding.
The detailed presentation of the violations of treaties and
international law will be presented by our British colleagues, in
support of Count Two of the Indictment.
In clear relief, there is shown the determination of the Nazi
conspirators to use whatever means were necessary to abrogate and
overthrow the Treaty of Versailles and its restrictions upon the
military armament and activity of Germany. In this process, they
conspired and engaged in secret rearmament and training, the secret
production of munitions of war, and they built up an air force. They
withdrew from the International Disarmament Conference and the League of
Nations on October 14, 1933. They instituted universal military service
on March 16, 1935. On May 21, 1935 they falsely announced that they
would respect the territorial limitations of Versailles and Locarno. On
March 7, 1936 they reoccupied and fortified the Rhineland and at the
same time, falsely announced that they had no territorial demands in
Europe.
The objectives of the conspirators were vast and mighty, requiring long
and extensive preparations. The process involved the evasion,
circumvention, and violation of international obligations and treaties.
They stopped at nothing.
The accomplishment of all those things, together with getting Versailles
out of the way, constituted an opening of the gates toward the specific
aggressions which followed.
I pass next, if the Tribunal please, to the presentation of the story of
the aggression against Austria. I do not know whether Your Honor desires
me to start on that or not. I am perfectly willing to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to use this volume of documents marked “M”
tomorrow?
MR. ALDERMAN: There will be a new one marked “N”.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 10 o’clock tomorrow
morning.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 28 November 1945 at 1000 hours._]
SEVENTH DAY
Wednesday, 28 November 1945
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the United States.
MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, at this point we distribute
document book lettered “N”, which will cover the next phase of the case,
as I will now undertake to present it. Of the five large phases of
aggressive warfare, which I undertake to present to the Tribunal, I have
now completed the presentation of the documents on the first phase, the
phase lasting from 1933 to 1936, consisting of the preparation for
aggression.
The second large phase of the program of the conspirators for aggression
lasted from approximately 1936 to March 1939, when they had completed
the absorption of Austria and the occupation of all of Czechoslovakia. I
again invite the Court’s attention to the chart on the wall. You may be
interested in glancing at it from time to time as the presentation
progresses.
The relevant portions of the Indictment to the present subject are set
forth in Subsection 3, under Section IV (F), appearing on Pages 7 and 8
of the printed English text. This portion of the Indictment is divided
into three parts: First, the 1936 to 1938 phase of the plan, planning
for the assault on Austria and Czechoslovakia; second, the execution of
the plan to invade Austria, November 1937 to March 1938; third, the
execution of the plan to invade Czechoslovakia, April 1938 to March
1939.
As I previously indicated to the Tribunal, the portion of the Indictment
headed “(a) Planning for the assault on Austria and Czechoslovakia” is
proved for the most part by Document Number 386-PS, which I introduced
on Monday. That is Exhibit USA-25. That was one of the handful of
documents with which I began my presentation of this part of the case.
The minutes taken by Colonel Hossbach of the meeting in the Reich
Chancellery on 5 November 1937, when Hitler developed his political last
will and testament, reviewed the desire of Nazi Germany for more room in
central Europe, and made preparations for the conquest of Austria and
Czechoslovakia as a means of strengthening Germany for the general
pattern of the Nazi conspiracy for aggression.
I shall present the material on this second, or Austrian phase of
aggression, in two separate parts. I shall first present the materials
and documents relating to the aggression against Austria. They have been
gathered together in the document book which has just been distributed.
Later I shall present the material relating to the aggression against
Czechoslovakia. They will be gathered in a separate document book.
First, we have the events leading up to the autumn of 1937, and the
strategic position of the National Socialists in Austria. I suggest at
this point, if the Tribunal please, that in this phase we see the first
full flowering of what has come to be known as Fifth Column infiltration
techniques in another country, and first under that, the National
Socialist aim of absorption of Austria.
In order to understand more clearly how the Nazi conspirators proceeded,
after the meeting of 5 November 1937, covered by the Hossbach minutes,
it is advisable to review the steps which had already been taken in
Austria by the Nazi Socialists of both Germany and Austria. The position
which the Nazis had reached by the fall of 1937 made it possible for
them to complete their absorption of Austria much sooner and with much
less cost than had been contemplated at the time of the meeting covered
by the Hossbach minutes.
The acquisition of Austria had long been a central aim of the German
National Socialists. On the first page of _Mein Kampf_ Hitler said:
“German Austria must return to the Great German Motherland.” He
continued by stating that this purpose of having common blood in a
common Reich could not be satisfied by a mere economic union. Moreover,
this aim of absorption of Austria was an aim from 1933 on and was
regarded as a serious program which the Nazis were determined to carry
out.
At this point, I should like to offer in evidence our Document Number
1760-PS, which, if admitted, would be Exhibit USA-57. This document is
an affidavit executed in Mexico City on 28 August of this year by George
S. Messersmith, United States Ambassador, now in Mexico City. Before I
quote from Mr. Messersmith’s affidavit, I should like to point out
briefly that Mr. Messersmith was Consul General of the United States of
America in Berlin from 1930 to late spring of 1934. He was then made
American Minister in Vienna where he stayed until 1937.
In this affidavit he states that the nature of his work brought him into
frequent contact with German Government officials, and he reports in
this affidavit that the Nazi Government officials, with whom he had
contact, were on most occasions amazingly frank in their conversation
and concealed none of their aims.
If the Court please, this affidavit, which is quite long, presents a
somewhat novel problem of treatment in the presentation of this case. In
lieu of reading this entire affidavit into the record, I should like, if
it might be done in that way, to offer in evidence, not merely the
English original of the affidavit, but also a translation into German,
which has been mimeographed. This translation of the affidavit into
German has been distributed to counsel for the defendants.
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen): An affidavit of a
witness who is obtainable has just been turned over to the Court. The
content of the affidavit offers so many subjective opinions of the
witness, that it is imperative we hear the witness personally in this
matter.
I should like to take this occasion to ask that it be decided as a
matter of principle, whether that which a witness can testify from his
own knowledge may, without further ado, be presented in the form of an
affidavit; or whether if a witness is living and can be reached the
principle of oral proceedings should be applied, that is, the witness
should be heard directly.
MR. ALDERMAN: If the Tribunal please, I should like to be heard briefly
on the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: You have finished what you had to say, I understand?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will hear Mr. Alderman.
MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, I recognize, of course, the
inherent weakness of an affidavit as evidence where the witness is not
present and subject to cross-examination. Mr. Messersmith is an elderly
gentleman. He is not in good health. It was entirely impracticable to
try to bring him here; otherwise, we should have done so.