762.63/249
Memorandum by the Minister in Austria (Messersmith) of a Conversation With the German Minister in Austria (Von Papen)34
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Papen turned to me and asked what I meant about Austria. I said that I did not wish to single out the Austrian question more than any other, but that obviously if one faced the facts, as he said they must be faced, then one must recognize that there is real fear in Austria with regard to interference in her affairs, and that, in view of the whole situation, Germany must make it clear that she has no aspirations of a political nature with respect to Austria, and that she could do this very easily and it would cause great relief, not only in Austria, but in Europe.
Papen said “You mean that Germany should undertake some guarantees for Austria’s independence”, and then went on to say that Germany could not give any such guarantee of Austria’s independence when it was something which did not exist. One could only guarantee [Page 55] the independence of independent states, and Germany and Austria, under the Peace Treaties, were not really sovereign states. I remarked that this was rather a strange form of argument, which it would be rather difficult to support. Selby35 pointed out that Austria had had real reason to be disturbed by events during the last months. Papen said “I have given assurances to the Austrian Government that Germany does not wish to interfere in Austrian affairs.” I said that with all due respect to him and his position, what was needed to reassure Austria and Europe would be a German declaration.
Papen then said, “I have told the Chancellor and the Foreign Minister that as soon as the powers give Germany and Austria real sovereignty, I will make a statement that we will leave Austria alone.” I said that this form of argument would appear to most people as merely an endeavor to avoid the main issue, and that I doubted whether it would be wise to use such an argument in public, as its use would merely increase lack of confidence and would probably make the world more uncertain than ever of Germany’s real intentions.
Selby said that no progress could be made until there was this return of confidence. Papen said that he agreed entirely to this. I said there could be no confidence until there was more clarity. Papen said that he thought Germany’s attitude towards Austria was sufficiently clear.
As Papen had been deliberately pressing this conversation into these channels, I felt it necessary that there should be no misunderstanding, so I said that when I had called on his predecessor here, Dr. Rieth, Rieth had spoken to me of the German-Austrian question as an inner political one which could easily be settled if those other countries which thought they had an interest in it would keep their hands off. I said that when the German Minister in Austria made a remark of that kind and in such clear terms, they could not be surprised that there was lack of confidence in Austria and among the other countries of Europe. Papen said, “When did Rieth say that to you? He said it, of course, some time ago.” I said he made it towards the end of May or early in June, when I called on him on taking over my duties here. Papen replied that this was some time ago, and that I knew that he was not in sympathy with all that had been done in Germany. My statement obviously somewhat embarrassed him, as it was supported by a remark by Selby to the effect that there had been this tendency in Germany to consider German-Austrian relations as an internal German affair.
The conversation had grown to be somewhat prolonged and we were more or less isolated in the center of one of the drawing rooms, and it was time to leave. Lady Selby came up to remind her husband [Page 56] it was time to leave, and I did not hear certain remarks which Papen was making to Selby, but I gathered he was saying that the way was now open to settle these other “frontier questions,” some of which he began to point out, and I have the impression that these latter remarks impressed my British colleague and perhaps disturbed him more than anything else that had been said during this rather extraordinary conversation.
It was evident that Herr von Papen was very happy with the Saar solution, because to them it is another of the German victories since the end of the War, and that it merely opens the way for further German pressure. In his conversation he had said that Austria must be absolutely free to do as she pleases; the inference, of course, being that this is necessary so that she can be free to follow Germany. It is difficult to bring out in such a memorandum the complete import of what Papen said, but he evidently considered the Commons debate on German rearmament as the beginning of the recognition of the legalization of German rearmament, and, therefore, the putting of her into the position to start from the present point to go further in the same direction. It was quite clear from his conversation that to the people with whom he was talking during this last stay in Berlin the Saar solution is merely the next step towards further German demands. In other words, armed conflict may have been avoided over the Saar, but this settlement has done nothing towards relieving the tension in other directions, and according to the German view point, has merely strengthened Germany in pursuing her further objectives. One cannot minimize the importance of statements such as these made by Papen. We know that it is characteristic of him to make such statements, and those who know him realize that he is always doing this sort of thing. Papen himself may be inconsequential and naive, but this conversation took place a few hours after he returned from Berlin, and there is reason to believe he was reflecting Party attitude, as well as that of the Foreign Office.
In this connection, the Department will recall the conversation with Papen which I recently reported, in which he naїvely said that Germany had no designs on Austrian sovereignty, but that all that Germany wished was to be absolutely sure that in European politics Austria would follow Germany, and not France. It would seem quite clear that in spite of his protestations, his fundamental attitude with respect to Austria does not differ from that expressed by his predecessor, Dr. Rieth. I find that I neglected to mention in this memorandum that when I repeated to Papen what Rieth had said concerning the Austro-German problem being an internal one, Papen remarked that he was probably saying that “under instructions from home.”
[Page 57]The conversation closed by Sir Walford Selby going off with Lady Selby, and I remained for a few moments with Papen, asking him about mutual friends whom he had seen on his trip to Berlin. He said that he had seen Neurath, Bülow,36 and others, “who were all very much pleased and happy.” The conversation closed in a very amicable way, and Herr von Papen seemed to be quite oblivious to the fact that he had made rather interesting statements.