EIGHTH DAY
Thursday, 29 November 1945
Morning Session
MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal. Before
I resume the consideration of Mr. Messersmith's second affidavit,
Document 2385-PS, Exhibit USA-68, I should like to consider briefly
the status of the proof before this Tribunal of the matter stated in
the first Messersmith affidavit, introduced by the United States,
Document 1760-PS, Exhibit USA-57. You will recall that Mr.
Messersmith in that affidavit made the following general statements:
First, that although Nazi Germany stated that she would respect
the independence of Austria, in fact she intended from the very
beginning to conclude an Anschluss, and that Defendant Von Papen was
working toward that end.
Second, that although Nazi Germany pretended, on the surface, to
have nothing to do with the Austrian Nazis, in fact she kept up
contact with them and gave them support and instruction.
Third, that while they were getting ready for their eventual use
of force in Austria, if necessary, the Nazis were using quiet
infiltrating tactics to weaken Austria internally, through the use of
Christian-front personalities who were not flagrantly Nazi and could
be called what they referred to as Nationalist Opposition and through
the device of developing new names for Nazi organizations, so that
they could be brought into the Fatherland Front of Austria
corporatively--that is as an entire group.
Now let us see briefly what some of our German documents proved,
in support of these general statements in the Messersmith affidavit.
The excerpts I have already read out of the report from Rainer to
Bürckel, enclosed in the letter to Seyss-Inquart, Document
812-PS, Exhibit USA-61, showed:
First, that the Austrian Nazi groups kept up contacts with the
Reich although they did it secretly in accordance with instructions
from the Führer.
Second, that they continued their organization on a secret basis
so as to be ready in what they referred to as an emergency.
Third, that they used persons like Seyss-Inquart and
Glaise-Horstenau, who had what they called good legal positions, but
who