dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. HORN: Yes, I should like to make another short statement in answer to what Sir David considers as decisive for the evidence. Mr. Dahlerus will not say here what he heard from Ribbentrop; he will testify to what he heard about Ribbentrop from an important person and from Hitler himself, and that is why I consider him as particularly decisive.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A general point, My Lord, in the case of the witnesses who are asked for by Dr. Horn; I had prepared the comments of the Prosecution, and they have been typed out in English. The Tribunal will realize that we received this application only yesterday, and it had to be translated and is not ready by today. I have not been able to get this translation, but I have given Dr. Horn a copy quite informally so that he would be informed; and it might be useful if I handed it in because it might shorten the proceedings and also act as a record when the Tribunal resumes the consideration of these points. I do not know if that appeals to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Then we will adjourn now. I want to ask the Soviet Chief Prosecutor whether it would be convenient to the Soviet Prosecution that we should continue on Monday morning with this examination of witnesses and evidence. I think it will probably take the whole of the morning if we deal with the Defendant Ribbentrop's applications and then the Defendant Keitel's, so that the Soviet Prosecution, if that course were adopted, would come on at 2 o'clock. Would that be convenient for them?
GEN. RUDENKO: If it is convenient for the Tribunal it will be so for us, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: There is just one other point I should like to ask you. I think the Tribunal were notified that there were two 23 Feb. 4G witnesses the Soviet Prosecution proposed to call. I think that we said that the General Warlimont and, I think, General Halder, ought to be called so as to give the Defense Counsel the opportunity of cross-examining them.
GEN. RUDENKO: If the Tribunal so wishes I shall report on this question. I became acquainted with the transcript of the reports made by General Zorya and Colonel Pokrovsky when the question concerning witnesses Halder and Warlimont was discussed. The Soviet Delegation consider there to be no basis for objections to the Court examining the witnesses Generals Warlimont and Halder, at the request of the Defense. But the Soviet Prosecution intended to request that the Tribunal submit these witnesses as witnesses on behalf of the Soviet Prosecution. I should like once again to report about the plan which the Soviet Prosecution has in mind regarding the conclusion of the presentation of evidence. There remains for us to present to the Tribunal the last section, "Crimes against Humanity." The presentation of this will take approximately 3 to 4 hours. In addition, we shall ask the Tribunal to permit us to interrogate, episode by episode, four witnesses, Soviet citizens who have been specially brought and now are in Nuremberg. In such a way we consider that if we start our presentation tomorrow at 2 o'clock, then on Tuesday we will finish our presentation on all Counts.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will expect to have General Warlimont and Halder presented here before the Soviet case finishes, not for the Soviet Prosecution to ask them questions but for them to be cross-examined by the Defense if the Defense want to, but that may take place at any time that is convenient to you. If you wish, they could be called at 2 o'clock on Monday; if you prefer, at the end of the Soviet presentation, either on Tuesday afternoon or on Wednesday morning, whichever is convenient to you.
GEN. RUDENKO: As I already stated, the Soviet Prosecution did not think of introducing either Halder or Warlimont. The Soviet Prosecution did not object that, on the request of the Defense Counsel, HaIder and Warlimont be subjected to cross-examination. As far as I know, as far back as last December, the Tribunal granted the application of the Defense to call Halder into court as a witness. Therefore it seems to me, and in order to expedite the exposition of material of the Soviet Prosecution, this really will not influence the examination of essential questions, that the examination of the witnesses Warlimont and Halder be made in the Trial during the presentation of evidence by Defense Counsel. As far as I know, in the application of the Defendant Keitel, which was presented to the Tribunal, Halder and Warlimont are indicated as witnesses, and the Defendant Keitel and his attorney applied for examination of them as witnesses on behalf of the Defense. On the basis of this, I consider that the examination of these witnesses should be made during the presentation of evidence by the Defense Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that both General Warlimont and General Halder are here in Nuremberg. Is that so?
GEN.RUDENKO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Probably the most convenient course would be for the Tribunal to see exactly what order the Tribunal made with reference to their being called. We will look up the shorthand notes and see exactly what order we made and deal with the matter on Monday morning. In the meantime, on Monday morning we will continue, as you said is convenient to you, the applications by Dr. Horn for the Defendant Ribbentrop and the applications by Dr. Nelte on behalf of the Defendant Keitel; and we shall sit from 2 until 4 o'clock only on Monday afternoon. [The Tribunal adjourned until 25 February 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you dealt with Dahlerus last, I believe.
DR. HORN: That is right, Mr. President. As the next witness, I ask the Tribunal to call General Koestring, former military attache at Moscow, and at present in prison in Nuremberg. In this case I am willing to forego the personal appearance of the witness if the submission of affidavit will be permitted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we object to this witness and so Dr. Horn can develop it as far as he desires.
THE PRESIDENT: You object to him?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We object.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. HORN: I wish nevertheless, to ask the Tribunal to call the witness in this case. Originally, there was a possibility, as I was told, that the witness might be called by the Prosecution. Since this has not taken place, I ask that this witness be approved because he took part in the German-Russian negotiations from August to September 1939 at Moscow and, until the beginning of hostilities against the Soviet Union, remained at that post. The witness, therefore, can tell us about the attitude of authoritative German circles and personalities toward the German-Russian pact. For these reasons I ask the Tribunal to call the witness.
GEN. RUDENKO: As it has already been stated by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Prosecution objects to the summoning of this witness. I merely wish to define the position of the Prosecution in this case. The fact that the witness participated or was present at the August-September 1939 negotiations is scarcely of interest to the Tribunal. The Tribunal primarily proceeds from the fact of the existence of this agreement and its treacherous violation by Germany. Consequently, the summoning of this witness to describe these negotiations would merely delay the course of the Trial.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I am sorry, I was not able to understand the answer and the reasoning of the General.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat, General?
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I was saying, with reference to Sir David's protest, on behalf of the Prosecution, against the summoning of this witness, that I wished to explain that the summoning of this witness in regard to his presence at the 1939 negotiations at Moscow was of no interest whatsoever to the Tribunal. The Tribunal proceeds from the facts that this agreement had been concluded in 1939 and had been treacherously violated by Germany. I consider that the summoning of this witness before the Tribunal is superfluous since the witness in question has no connection whatsoever with the present case.
DR. HORN: I ask the Tribunal's permission to point out that for weeks General Koestring was in prison in Nuremberg at the disposal of the Prosecution. Therefore, I ask the Tribunal to grant him a hearing as a witness for the reasons which I have mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter. Dr. Horn, the Tribunal does not understand the fact that General Koestring is in prison at Nuremberg is any answer to the objection which is made on behalf of the Prosecution, namely, that the Tribunal is not interested in negotiations which took place in September 1939, but in the violation of the treaty. The Tribunal would like to know whether you have any answer to make to that objection? The only answer you have made up to date is that General Koestring is here in Nuremberg.
DR.HORN: Mr. President, General Koestring is to testify that the pact with Russia was drawn up with full intention of its being kept on the part of Germany and on the part of my client. I would not like to say anything further on this point at the moment and I ask the Court to call the witness on the basis of this reason.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider your request.
DR. HORN: The next witness is legation councillor for reports, Dr. Hesse, who was formerly in the Foreign Office in Berlin and now presumably is in the camp at Augsburg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is no objection to this witness. I do not know if Dr. Horn wants him in person or if an affidavit would do. The Prosecution do not feel strongly on the matter but they ask Dr. Horn whenever possible to accept an affidavit and they suggest that he might consider it in this case.
DR. HORN: In this case I will be satisfied with an affidavit. The next witness is the former ambassador in Bucharest, Fabricius, presumably in Allied custody in the American zone of occupation or possibly already discharged from custody.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection in this case. Apparently this witness will speak as to an interview which is already in evidence before the Court and will give a different account of it. Prosecution makes no objection under the circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that.
DR. HORN: The next witness is Professor Karl Burckhardt, President of the International Red Cross in Geneva and formerly League of Nations Commissioner at Danzig.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Burckhardt is obviously in a very special position. As President of the International Red Cross he is a person to whom all belligerents, irrespective of country, are indebted; and the point that the Prosecution makes is that if he can speak of evidence coming from Hitler himself, that is if he can prove either by saying that he was informed by Hitler that the Defendant Ribbentrop had interceded; or if he can say he saw letters received by Hitler from Ribbentrop, the Prosecution would have no objection. If he is merely going to say that Ribbentrop told him so, the Prosecution would object. Therefore, we submit that the reasonable course would be that he should make an affidavit as to his means of knowledge, and if that is done and if the means of knowledge are satisfactory, I should not think for a moment that the Prosecution would do anything but accept the evidence of Dr. Burckhardt. The second point, we submit, is irrelevant: the question of the results of the English promises of guarantee to Poland on the position in Danzig.
DR. HORN: Aside from the reasons which I have already submitted in my application, I can also say that Professor Burckhardt visited Ribbentrop and Hitler in the year 1943 and therefore can make detailed statements with reference to the reasons which I have mentioned for calling him. That answers the first question by Sir David. I also agree, however, in this case that Professor Burckhardt submit the necessary affidavit and thus be spared a personal examination. The next witness is the Swiss Ambassador Feldscher, who was finally, to our knowledge, Ambassador at Berlin.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggest, My Lord, that he comes into the same position as Dr. Burckhardt. He should be dealt with in the same way.
DR. HORN: I agree, Mr. President. The next witness is the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr.Winston Churchill.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution objects to this application and, with the greatest respect to Dr. Horn, submits that there are no relevant reasons disclosed in the application now before the Tribunal. The first part of it is apparently an account of a conversation which does not touch the facts of this case, and the second part is also a discussion of a conversation which apparently took place some years before the war, between the German Ambassador and a gentleman who at that time was in no official position in England. But what relevancy the conversation has to any of the issues in this case the Prosecution respectfully submits is not only nonapparent but nonexistent.
DR. HORN: Against this statement of Sir David, I want first to point out the following: Prime Minister Winston Churchill was at that time Leader of His Majesty's Opposition in Parliament. In this capacity we may attribute to him a sort of official position, particularly since he, to my knowledge, as Leader of the Opposition is even paid a salary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure that Dr. Horn would be the last person to rely on a point on which he has been misinformed. Mr. Churchill was not Leader of His Majesty's Opposition at any period and was certainly not from 1936 to 1938, when the Defendant Ribbentrop was ambassador. Mr. Attlee was the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Churchill was not in office; was a back-bench member of the Conservative Party, independent member of the Conservative Party at that time. I did not want my friend to be under any misapprehension.
DR. HORN: At any rate, Mr. President, Mr. Churchill was one of the statesmen best known in Germany. This statement, which Churchill made at that time on the occasion of his visit to the embassy, was immediately reported to Hitler by Ribbentrop and was, in all probability, one of the reasons for Hitler's making the statements quoted in the so-called Hossbach document , submitted as Document Number 386-PS, which contains statements and declarations so surprising to the participants and in which the Prosecution saw the first definite evidence of a conspiracy in the sense of the Indictment. Furthermore, I should like to say that the British Prosecutor, Jones, mentioned that, after the seizure of Czechoslovakia by Germany, people in England and Poland became very concerned. Therefore negotiations between England and Poland were started, and a pact of guarantee concluded. On the basis of this statement of Churchill which has been mentioned, and those of other important British statesmen, according to which England would bring about a coalition against Germany within a few years in order to oppose Hitler with all available means -- as a result of these statements, Hitler became henceforth more keenly anxious to increase his own armaments and to busy himself with strategic plans. For these reasons I consider Churchill's statement extraordinarily important and I ask that this witness be called.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have stated my point, My Lord; I do not think I can add to it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to have Dr. Horn's observations, which they have only heard through the microphone, in writing on this subject.
DR. HORN: As the next witnesses I name Lord Londonderry, Lord Kemsley, Lord Beaverbrook, and Lord Vansittart. Interrogatories have already been sent out to these witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: These witnesses are being dealt with by interrogatories and we make no objection to the interrogatories.
DR. HORN: As the next witness I would like to call Admiral Schuster; last address, Kiel.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We object to the calling of Admiral Schuster. The grounds for his being asked for are that he took part in the negotiations which led to the German-English Naval Treaty of 1935. Apparently the point that is desired to be made is that the treaty was concluded on this defendant's initiative. The Prosecution submit that that point is irrelevant; that the negotiations before the treaty are irrelevant, and the treaty is there for the Tribunal to take judicial notice of and from which my friend can find any argument which he desires. But in general, the Prosecution wish to stress that going into negotiations anterior to old-standing treaties would be an intolerable waste of time when there are so many vital issues before the Tribunal.
DR. HORN: In this Trial we are discussing straightforwardly the problem of plans and preparations. In this connection it is certainly not inappropriate to hear evidence as to what the German Government, and especially Ribbentrop, had planned and prepared at that time. This planning and preparations which took place within the negotiations leading to the signing of the naval treaty was carried further than just to the conclusion of that treaty. The treaty was considered by Von Ribbentrop -- and Admiral Schuster can bear witness to the fact -- the first cornerstone in a close treaty of alliance between England and Germany. To make these intentions clear to the Tribunal, and thereby the policy which the Defendant Von Ribbentrop pursued, I consider this witness important; and I ask Sir David to modify his position.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I cannot. My colleagues and I have considered this master very carefully and I have put our general position as to pre-treaty negotiations, especially as to treaties of long standing. With the greatest desire to be reasonable, to help Dr. Horn, I am very sorry I cannot, at this point, accede to his request.
GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to complete what my colleague, Sir David, has stated by the following: Dr. Horn has requested us to justify the arguments of the Prosecution. I believe that there is one fundamental divergence in this matter between the Prosecution and the Defense. The Defense, in calling witnesses, give evidence and try to prove the defendants' endeavors to conclude peace-promoting agreements. We proceed from another fact, namely, the treacherous violation of concluded agreements and the commission of crimes contravening these agreements. And it seems to be quite superfluous to call witnesses to prove that the defendants strove, in view of these considerations, to sign peaceful agreements. The violation and treachery in the fulfillment of these agreements are generally known facts.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, in order to test the relevancy of this class of evidence, I should like to ask you this question: Assume that Ribbentrop did want to make agreements with England and did not wish that Germany should make war on England. What relevancy would that have to the allegation that Germany was planning to make war upon Poland?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, to be able to answer that question decisively as far as the conduct of the Defense is concerned, I would have to go back to the state of all the political and diplomatic affairs of the period previous to the second World War. To explain the reasons for calling witnesses, I would not like to enter into arguments yet on such matters of principle before I have thoroughly scrutinized all the possible evidence at my disposal and formed a definite opinion -- and a basis for my conduct of the Defense. The ruling which the President gave regarding reasons for summoning witnesses -- that the Tribunal will help us to procure the witnesses and the evidentiary material -- I have understood to mean that for the summoning of witnesses, we have only to state reasons which in all probability would be confirmed by the witnesses themselves after preliminary interrogation. To make it quite clear, I do not wish to prejudice myself. 2o Feb. 46
THE PRESIDENT: It is a material question to consider in considering what evidence is relevant. But as you do not wish to commit yourself upon the point, you can proceed.
DR. HORN: The next witness is Ambassador Dr. Paul Schmidt, former interpreter at the Foreign Office in Berlin, at this time probably at Oberursel in the interrogation camp.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the next two witnesses, who are grouped together in the application, they are desired to give evidence of the fact that this defendant asked Hitler five or six times for permission to resign. Again I make the point, which I have made several times to the Tribunal, that if these witnesses can give evidence from the Hitler side of these offers, then there would be no objection. If they merely give evidence of the fact that Von Ribbentrop told them that he had offered to resign, that does not, in the submission of the Prosecution, take it any further. But it may well be that there are letters which went to Hitler which these gentlemen saw; and if that is the purpose of their evidence, then the Prosecution feel that it might be relevant, certainly on the question of sentence; if not, then they would reserve all rights to say whether it was a question of guilt or innocence in view of the provisions of the Charter. I therefore suggest that the reasonable course would be for both these gentlemen to make affidavits of their means of knowledge and that would deal with the point which I have put to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you suggest a preliminary affidavit rather than interrogatories? Would not interrogatories be wiser?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would agree, My Lord; interrogatories which would cover that point of means of knowledge would be the best thing. I do not think, if I may put it that way, that it would be worth while making two bites at the cherry, if I may use a colloquialism.
DR.HORN: We can talk about the next two witnesses at the same time. I believe I can already say that Sir David will give the same reasons against them as he did against the other witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought, My Lord, that my friend and I could agree that they stand or fall with the Tribunal's decision on Admiral Schuster.
DR. HORN: Then, I would like to forego the calling of these two witnesses, provided the Court will grant me Admiral Schuster. The next witness is the former Chief Recorder at the Foreign Office, Dornberg, at present most probably interned at Augsburg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again, with great respect, Herr Dornberg's views on the veracity of Count Ciano, in my submission, are not relevant. If we get into calling witnesses to express their views as to the veracity of or other characteristics of the statesmen of Europe, the Tribunal would embark on a course that might well take a very long time and would not lead to any great results, and I respectfully submit that this is not a class of testimony or a ground of testimony which the Tribunal should entertain.
DR.HORN: Mr. President, with reference to this matter I can say that Ciano, himself, in his diary which has now been made accessible to us, presents this proof -- at least as to the decisive point -- which Mr. Dornberg is supposed to bring; and we shall submit it to the Court at the proper time and -- I believe I can say -- in a conclusive form. The second point of Dornberg's statement deals with the matter of decoration. The Russian Prosecution has accused Ribbentrop of bartering Siebenburgen for a high Romanian order. For this reason I would like permission to question Mr. Dornberg about this point either here or in the form of an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: Next I name Ambassador Schnurre, chief of the commercial policy department of the Foreign Office, present whereabouts unknown, presumably in custody in the British zone.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With great respect, My Lords, the Prosecution again say that there is no need for a witness to be called to give information that his political chief intended to keep a treaty which he signed. The very grounds that are given for the application seem to me to show that this is really a matter of comment and argument, and we submit that a witness on this point is both irrelevant and unnecessary.