LOREDO. In his younger years he had been in the diplomatic service. His elder brother was a leading personality in Austrian agriculture. I was President of the "Union Club" in Berlin, the German equivalent of the "Jockey Club", which had once been just as exclusive as its Viennese brother; I was furthermore a lover of horses, and a gentleman horseman [Herrenreiter]. Thus my admission to the Austrian "Jockey Club" seemed to be a matter of course. At one time our two clubs had had an agreement for mutually restricted membership for the duration of the presence of a member in the other capital. Furthermore the "Jockey Club", like the "Union Club", had always included the chiefs of all foreign missions among its members. In view of all this, I had the customary steps for admission taken by a member of the "Jockey Club", Count BERCHEM. To his and my great amazement Count COLLOREDO intimated to him that my membership was not wanted.

In any other such case I would have countered this unusual refusal with the cold discourtesy which such bad behaviour deserved. Here, however, the situation was different. The effrontery went beyond my person, and was obviously aimed at the Reich, which I had represented in Vienna. I pursued the matter further, and found that a large number of my friends considered COLLOREDO's procedure "impossible". This opinion was shared, among others, by Prince WINDISCHGRAETZ, the Counts WILCECK, Adolf DUBSKY, Carl KHUEN, Prince Carl KINSKY. I told Count BERCHEM that I would counter this effrontery by using my powers as President of the "Union Club", and would cause the withdrawal from the "Jockey Club" of all its German members (about 20) unless the case was settled to my satisfaction. This case created a sensation. Thanks to the efforts of my friend BERCHEM, it was finally settled satisfactorily. It will, however, be understood that I do not count the dinner given by Count COLLOREDO in honor of my initiation among those events of my diplomatic life which I remember with especial relish. The words which TALLEYRAND once threw in NAPOLEON's face could be applied to COLLOREDO: "Je n'aurais janais cru, qu'une haute personne peut etre si mal elevee".

It is with profound gratitude that I remember here the old, much-venerated Princess Sophie OETTINGEN-SPIELBERG, a granddaughter of Chancellor Prince METTERNICH. She kept her vigorous spirits until a ripe old age; she had inherited the entire political acumen of her great ancestor, and displayed fervid interest in all political problems. Her small palace, filled with so

many souvenirs of Austria's great age, was a center of the old society. Her often significant judgment of men and things always hit the mark. The princess has cleared many a path for me, which would otherwise have remained blocked. During the first phase of old life in Vienna, when so many avoided the Metternich Gasse, it was she who always appeared at official receptions, unconcerned about possible criticism of the opposition. The same can be said about Prince WINDISCHGRAETZ, a son-in-law of the blessed Emperor FRANZ JOSEPH. From the very first the Prince took our side. I must not forget the many proofs of faithful friendship given us from the very first by Countess ELSE THUN and her brothers-in-law, Count Adolf DUBSKY and Count Carl KHUEN. We made many contacts with valuable and interesting people in the political salon of Countess THUN, a very intelligent, clever, and gracious daughter of the former Imperial and Royal Ambassador to Rome, Count LUETZOW.

To my pleasure and satisfaction I can affirm that by our last winter in Vienna the majority of my opponents had come to understand the loyal policy towards Austria which I advocated. This was particularly true after it had borne fruit in an amity pact with the SCHUSCHNIGG government, which I concluded 11 July 1936. With few exceptions my opponents had made peace with me.

The most difficult part of my mission was to overcome the antipathy of the high clergy. It certainly did nothing to smooth the path I had to follow. In vain I sought a conversation with the guiding spirit of the episcopat, the Cardinal of Vienna. The cardinal refused to receive me or to enter my house. As a native Sudeten-German, not Austrian, he could undoubtedly view the thorny problem of the "Anschluss" more objectively than, for instance, the Prince-Bishop of Salzburg, Dr. WAITZ. The latter bore the title of "Primas Germaniae"; he viewed the course of National Socialism with deadly opposition. Perhaps INNITZER himself was too passive a personality, too much under the influence of his Salzburg colleague. It was two years before a conversation took place between us. For this progress I am indebted mainly to Mr. von FAUNER, a man who is as excellent a human being as he is a priest. He had been an officer of the imperial and royal army, he did distinguished service in the world war. The experiences of this great tragedy had led him to the clerical profession. It is an old experience that persons who themselves have lived through many fateful experiences and who only late in life become priests, usually become excellent ministers and servants

of the Holy Church. Thus, FAUNER too became an excellent clergyman who was well known and well loved in Vienna for his activity in charity. He had great influence upon the Cardinal. Later on, my relations with His Eminence became quite confidential. It was a special pleasure for me that, a few hours after HITLER's entry, I was able to arrange a personal meeting of these two men. I expected good results for the Austrian Church from this meeting. The good intention was there, even though the satanic doctrine of the leading people of National-Socialism had destroyed all these hopes and the Austrian Church was persecuted even more furiously than the Church in the Reich.

Today, at the end of the greatest of tragedies, one must admit that the Austrian Bishopry has been proved right. But at the same time this does not prove that history could not have taken a different turn. It also does not prove that everything we did and tried was wrong and uncalled for. It would be a sad fact if all human aspiration were to be judged by its success.

The Reich Concordat on the Holy See-as Pope Pius XII just recently stated again-was not made in 1934 in order to approve the National-Socialistic concept of the State nor the means which were used to carry out this concept of the state. It was made by the church hoping that it will have a moderating influence upon National-Socialism as far as its motive and anti-clerical tendencies were concerned. At that time this hope was my motive as well as it is now in Vienna. The Pope with whom-as a secretary of state I had conferences about this matter at the time, certainly will not think today-despite all disappointments-that the attempt should not have been made.

Today, after 6 hard years of war, humanity looks with horror upon the heritage of the ideas of a state which finally had believed to be able to disregard the holiest principles of humanity in order to reach its goals. It made nihilism, which it pretended to fight, the substance of its doctrine. But this state does not mean the German people, as the conquerors of today maintain. And in Austria too, one cannot hold the Austrian people responsible for the persecution of the Church, the Austrian people which is traditionally and essentially really Catholic. Who knows the innumerable people in the Reich who have fought with determination against the unbelief, thousands of whom have paid for their fight with prison, concentration camp and death? At that time, in the years of the beginning, they were still hoping that after the first revolutionary period a turn to the better would take place. If the Austrian Episcopate would not have used his in

fluence upon the chancellor and his government only in the negative way, even if it had not endeavoured to succeed in obtaining an actual autonomy in Austria with full freedom for the Churchperhaps much could have been spared Austria and also the world.

It was my first purpose in the diplomatic field to deprive the Austrian problem of its European character, and to develop it gradually into an exclusively internal problem between the Reich and Austria.

It therefore had to be my primary aim to convince the Vatican that a union could not endanger the Vatican's interests. A Concordat of the Reich with the Vatican had been my first attempt to prevent religious difficulties arising from Nazism's revolutionary doctrine; the attempt had obviously failed. Under the growing influence of his Party, HITLER sabotaged the Concordat. Rome was deeply disappointed and in the greatest excitement. But the very question of the "Anschluss", which was so close to HITLER's heart, was certain to afford a chance to change his attitude. After all, I thought, HITLER must recognize that the inner-Austrian resistance cannot possibly be removed if such anti-Christian methods are continued. HITLER himself was at least baptized as a Catholic, and (I said to myself) must know the Catholic atmosphere of his native country thoroughly. Perhaps we could obtain a declaration from the church authorities, indicating which items of the Nazi program the church approved without reservations, and which items it had to refute on principle. If such a declaration could be obtained, it would perhaps be possible to persuade HITLER to revise the Nazi program. Such a revision was no more than his duty as a statesman: to smooth the paths of foreign relations throughout the world.

The old Reich-German religious establishment in Rome, the "Anima", was headed by a very clever prelate, Bishop HUDAL. He followed religious developments in the Third Reich and the Austrian problem with fervid interest. I encouraged him to pursue these interests further. He then decided to write and publish a scientific study on the "Foundations of National Socialism". This publication was utterly objective. He recognized and strongly approved of the effort to lead a pitiless fight against Bolshevism's nihilistic tendencies, and to reach a social conciliation between labor and capital at any price. But Bishop HUDAL also stated unequivocally that this path is only open on the ground of Christian principles, and that all those Nazi program items must be eradicated which contradicted those unalterable principles in theory or practice. The Holy See viewed the attempt sceptically.

But it nevertheless gave its "imprimatur". Msgr. HUDAL had the book printed in Austria, and in its preface fully expressed the whole priestly passion for the finding of a right path in this most basic of all problems.

I had often spoken to HITLER about Msgr. HUDAL's work. I emphasized its great significance for the Austrian problem, and I found HITLER very interested in it. Now I requested Msgr. HUDAL to send the first copy to HITLER with a personal dedication. He willingly acceded to my request, and personally handed the copy to HITLER, who accepted it with thanks.

Then the Party's counteraction set in. The import of books everywhere was at that time strictly controlled. My demand for a permit remained unanswered. I again went to HITLER and pinned him down. He said that the agency concerned (SA Control Commission for Literature) had decided against admission of the book into Germany. I rejoined that the publisher had not intended to exercise pressure on the Party through mass distribution. The book was meant for a limited number of intellectuals, particularly for leading Party men and for him, the Fuehrer, himself; and that the book should thus finally bring about a serious discussion of the problem and a satisfactory, statesmanlike solution. Our conversation lasted for hours. Every time when I thought I had convinced HITLER to see and act my way, Herr BORMANN entered the conversation. At that early date BORMANN already had decisive influence on HITLER, which I had ignored until then. This Party fanatic, a former teacher, was filled with an inexplicable hate of all Christian principles. He said that this book would be blasting powder to the Party, and that its admission could not but spell disaster. And as soon as effect on the Party was mentioned, all statesmanlike considerations seemed to recede far into the background of HITLER'S mind, and he reversed himself. Thus I finally succeeded-after weeks of struggling-in having only 2,000 copies admitted into Germany for distribution to interested notables. Probably Herr BORMANN confiscated the majority even of those, and thus sabotaged my effort completely. Msgr. HUDAL was disappointed and crestfallen. This made me painfully sympathetic toward him, since he had risked his reputation and position in Rome with this effort, moved by a warmblooded priestly and patriotic heart. To me the affair meant a new setback and a disappointment. But I had no right to give up the game as long as a chance remained.

Austria gradually began to calm down. I never rested in my efforts to convince the world around us of the change which had taken place in HITLER's policy. These facts helped to remove