dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. DIX: Before the Tribunal confer, may I ask only one question. I have understood the course of the discussion up to now in this way: That the difficulty has arisen owing to the fact that as the Russian and French translations are not available, some of the Prosecution are still unable to form an opinion with reference to this material and consequently cannot decide whether they wish to raise objections or not. On the other hand the Tribunal wants to avoid quotations being read here concerning matters on which it has not yet been decided whether the Prosecution want to raise objections. This is the situation which appears to me to be the cause of the difficulties arising at present. I have not understood the statements of the Tribunal, of His Lordship, to mean -- I beg to be corrected if I am wrong -- that there is to be a deviation from the already announced decision or from the procedure followed up to now, that we may quote essential and important portions of the documents submitted by us, when they have been admitted as relevant by the Tribunal. I believe that I am right in my impression that no exception is to be made to this principle and that no basic new decision is to be made here now, but only an interim ruling is being sought: How can we surmount the difficulties that Dr. Horn may not at the moment read individual passages from his documents because the Tribunal is not yet in a position to decide their relevancy and admit them, because the Tribunal cannot yet hear the attitude of the Prosecution? Before we adjourn, therefore, so that we have a definite basis for our discussion, I should like to ask the Court if my interpretation is correct. Is it now merely a question of finding a way out while basically maintaining the right of the Defense to speak connecting words, words of explanation of the documents, that is, such words without which the documents could not be understood, and to read individual relevant parts, but that on principle only these technical interim questions are to be decided?
DR. DIX: I should be grateful to Your Lordship if I could be told if this conception of mine, regarding the nature of these difficulties which have arisen, is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now and we will return to Court very shortly and we will consider what you have said. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: On the 22 March 1946, the Tribunal made this ruling, repeating a ruling of 8 March 1946: That rule has not, for very likely sufficient reason, been able to be carried out, and therefore certainly the Tribunal have not got the translations, and they understand that the Prosecution have not got, at any rate, all the translations. The difficulty which has arisen, the Tribunal think, is in part, at any rate, due to that fact. The Tribunal, in citing that order of 8 March 1946, on 22 March 1946, said this: In this connection the Tribunal then went on to read the order of 8 March, which deals with translations. Now, in the present case, the translations not being in the hands of the Tribunal or of all the prosecutors, it has been iml5ossible for the prosecutors to make their objections and impossible for the Tribunal to rule upon the admissibility of the documents. Therefore, it is natural that the Prosecution have objected to the Defense reading from documents which they had not seen. The Tribunal understands that the translations of these documents of Dr. Horn's will be ready tomorrow. They hope, therefore, that the order which I have just read will be able to be carried out tomorrow, and they propose for the present, and if the order is reasonably and fairly carried out by Defense Counsel, to adhere to it. They would draw the attention of the defendants' counsel again to the first paragraph of the order and would remind them that they must adhere strictly to that order: In that connection I would add: "and are not cumulative". The Tribunal cannot sit here and have three or four hundred documents read to them and commented upon and argued, and therefore it is absolutely essential in the opinion of the Tribunal that counsel must summarize briefly and indicate the relevance of the documents briefly and read only such passages as are really strictly relevant and are not cumulative. The Tribunal are prepared to adhere to that rule, as I say, if counsel will adhere strictly to it themselves, and they think if Dr.
THE PRESIDENT: Horn will state, after offering the documents either in one complete bulk or in a group or in groups, the relevancy of each group and confine himself to the reading of only passages which are really necessary to be read in order to understand the documents, that will be satisfactory to them. But they cannot sit here to hear either each of those documents offered in evidence by its number or to hear a short speech or even a longer speech about the relevancy of each of the documents or to hear passages read from each of those documents. The number of documents is very great and it is impossible for the Tribunal to carry on an expeditious trial unless the rule which they have laid down is interpreted in the way in which I have indicated. As I have already indicated in the emphasis which I threw upon the words, this rule was expressly made for the present and unless it is marked by the Defense Counsel in a reasonable way the rule will be altered. [The Tribunal adjourned until 28 March 1946 at 1000 hours.]
DR. HORN: In accordance with the request of the Tribunal, I am now presenting in groups the documents not yet named, as follows: First of all, the group concerning the Polish question. In my document book, you will find a document, Ribbentrop Exhibit Number 200 (Document Number Ribbentrop-200) which I am submitting to the Tribunal for judicial notice. In this document, Prime Minister Chamberlain, in a letter to Hitler dated 22 August 1939, defines his attitude regarding the basis for conflict between Germany and Poland. In this connection he emphasizes the question of minorities as one of the main causes of the conflict. As proof of the fact that this minority question already played an important part when the Polish State came into being, I refer to the document, Ribbentrop Exhibit Number 72 (Document Number Ribbentrop-72), which I submit to the Tribunal for judicial notice. This contains observations by the German Peace Delegation on the peace conditions. In a further document -- Ribbentrop Exhibit Number 74 (Document Number Ribbentrop-74), which I submit to the Tribunal for judicial notice -- the President of the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers, Clemenceau, once again draws the attention of the Polish Prime Minister, Paderewski, to this problem. May I offer as proof ...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I want to explain the position of the Prosecution. We have not yet received these documents, and therefore we are in the position that we have been able to make only a tentative selection of those to which we object. All this book of documents has been objected to as far as we know. I want only to make it clear that we are admitting, without protest, the course taken by Dr. Horn on the basis which Your Lordship announced yesterday, that he is putting them in en bloc , subject to our right to object formally when we have the documents. Therefore it is only right that we must preserve our position, because I have arranged, and all my colleagues agree, that there should be objections to a number of these documents on our present state of knowledge.
DR. HORN: May I ask Your Lordship to hear me for a moment?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to say something? Were you going to add something to what Sir David had said?
DR. HORN: In view of the objections raised by the Prosecution I request that a general ruling be made now as to whether the Defense have to submit to disadvantages arising out of technical deficiencies and for which they are not responsible, and whether our already limited presentation of evidence shall be made practically impossible by our being unable to discuss even in a general way, documentary material with the Prosecution and the Tribunal. May I ask, therefore, that the presentation of documents in their shortened form, as requested by the Tribunal yesterday, be postponed until the document books are available.
THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty seems entirely to arise from the fact that your document books are not ready. That is what causes the difficulty. If the document books had been ready and had been submitted to the Prosecution, the Prosecution would be in a position to object to them. That is the reason why Sir David is objecting in this provisional form. But if you have witnesses whom you are going to call, why do you not call them while your books are being got ready? That seems to the Tribunal to be the obvious course. Call your witnesses and then we can have the documents introduced at a later stage, when we can see them. That is the only reasonable course and why you do not adopt it I do not know.
DR. HORN: An officer of the Translation Division informed me recently, that he is not in a position, with the personnel at his disposal, to catch up with translations. That is the cause of the trouble and it is beyond my control. I submitted the documents in good time for translation.
THE PRESIDENT: That was not the point I was dealing with. Perhaps the interpretation did not come through correctly. What I said was that if you have witnesses whom you propose to call, why do you not call them now?
DR. HORN: I had intended to call the witnesses in the course of my presentation of documents and in accordance with the groups of questions on which witnesses could make statements.
THE PRESIDENT: No doubt you had, but as your documents are not here to be presented to the Court, then you must get on, and the only way to get on with your case is to call your witnesses.
DR. HORN: In that case, may I ask for 5 minutes so that I can have a short conversation with a woman witness and then I shall call her?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. Wait one moment. Yes, Mr. Dodd?
MR. DODD: If Your Honor pleases, I would not begrudge any counsel 5 minutes. This woman witness has been here for a long time. She stood outside all day yesterday. I think Dr. Horn has talked to her before. He has had ample opportunity to confer with her. He knew he was going to call her; he asked this Court for permission to call her. I think we are faced here with almost a one-man filibuster at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that the witness must be called at once.
DR. HORN: In that case I wish to have Fraulein Blank called as a witness. [The witness Blank took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell me your name?
MARGARETE BLANK (Witness): My name is Margarete Blank.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God -- the Almighty and Omniscient -- that I will speak the pure truth -- and will withhold and add nothing. [The witness repeated the oath in German.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down if you wish.
DR. HORN: When did you first meet Herr Von Ribbentrop ?
FRAULEIN BLANK: I met him at the beginning of November 1934 in Berlin, when he was delegate for disarmament questions.
DR. HORN: When did you become secretary of the former Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop?
FRAULEIN BLANK: On 1 November 1934 I was engaged as secretary in the Ribbentrop office. His personal secretary gave notice and, as her successor did not turn up, Von Ribbentrop asked me whether I was willing to take the post. I said "yes" and became his personal secretary on 1 February 1935.
DR. HORN: What was Von Ribbentrop's attitude towards Hitler?
FRAULEIN BLANK: As far as I can judge Herr Von Ribbentrop always showed the greatest admiration and veneration for Adolf Hitler. To enjoy the Fuehrer's confidence, to justify it by his conduct and work was his chief aim, to which he devoted all his efforts. To achieve this aim no sacrifice was too great. In carrying out the tasks set him by the Fuehrer he showed utter disregard for his own person. When speaking of Hitler to his subordinates he did so with the greatest admiration. Appreciation of his services by the Fuehrer, as for instance the award of the Golden Party Badge of Honor, the recognition of his accomplishments in a Reichstag speech, a letter on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday, full of appreciation and praise, meant to him the highest recompense for his unlimited devotion.
DR. HORN: Is it true that Ribbentrop adhered to Hitler's views even if he himself was of a different opinion?
FRAULEIN BLANK: What I just said shows that in cases of differences of opinion between himself and the Fuehrer, Herr Von Ribbentrop subordinated his own opinion to that of the Fuehrer. Once a decision had been made by Adolf Hitler there was no more criticism afterwards. Before his subordinates Herr Von Ribbentrop presented the Fuehrer's views as if they were his own. If the Fuehrer expressed his will, it was always equivalent to a military order.
DR. HORN: To what do you attribute this attitude?
FRAULEIN BLANK: I attribute it first of all to Ribbentrop's view that the Fuehrer was the only person capable of making the right political decisions. Secondly, I attribute it to the fact that Herr Von Ribbentrop, as the son of an officer and as a former officer himself, having taken the oath of allegiance to the Fuehrer, felt himself bound in loyalty and considered himself a soldier, so to say, who had to carry out orders given him, and not to criticize or change them.
DR. HORN: Do you know anything about Ribbentrop having tendered his resignation several times?
FRAULEIN BLANK: Yes, that happened several times. But about such personal matters Ribbentrop would not speak to his subordinates. I remember only the resignation handed in by him in 1941. I assume that this resignation, as well as the later ones, was tendered by a handwritten letter. The reason for this resignation lay in differences with other departments as to competency; in view of their encroachments upon the competence of the Foreign Office, Herr Von Ribbentrop felt he could no longer take responsibility for the Reich's foreign policy.
DR. HORN: What was the result of these offers to resign?
FRAULEIN BLANK: They were turned down.
DR. HORN: Were you with Von Ribbentrop while he was Ambassador in England?
FRAULEIN BLANK: Yes.
DR. HORN: Is it true that Ribbentrop over a number of years worked for close alliance between Germany and England?
FRAULEIN BLANK: Yes. For this reason Von Ribbentrop, in the summer of 1936, asked the Fuehrer to send him as ambassador to England. The Naval Agreement of 1935 was only a first step. Subsequently an air pact was contemplated, but, for reasons unknown to me, was not concluded.
DR. HORN: Do you know anything about Von Ribbentrop's views on the British theory of balance of power on the continent?
FRAULEIN BLANK: From numerous statements by Ribbentrop I know he was of the opinion that England still adhered to her traditional balance of power policy. In this his ideas were opposed to those of the Fuehrer, who was of the opinion that with the development of Russia a factor had arisen in the East which necessitated a revision of the old balance of power policy -- in other words, that England had a vital interest in the steadily increasing strength of Germany. From Ribbentrop's attitude it could be inferred that he expected that in the Polish crisis the English guarantee for Poland would be honored.
DR. HORN: What political aims did Von Ribbentrop want to achieve by the conclusion of the Tripartite Pact?
FRAULEIN BLANK: The Tripartite Pact was to be a pact for the limitation of war.
DR. HORN: Do you know whether Ribbentrop endeavored to keep America out of the war?
FRAULEIN BLANK: Yes, the Tripartite Pact was signed with this end in view.
DR. HORN: And now another set of questions. What was Herr Von Ribbentrop's attitude in church questions?
FRAULEIN BLANK: As far as I can judge, his attitude in church questions was very tolerant. To my knowledge, he left the Church already in the twenties, but in this respect he exercised no pressure or influence on his personnel or, rather, he did not bother about it at all. His tolerance went even so far that in 1935 he let his two eldest children have their wish and rejoin the Church. His tolerance in personal questions of religion was in line with his political attitude towards the Church. In this connection I remember Von Ribbentrop's sending the Fuehrer a fundamental memorandum in which he advocated a tolerant church policy. In the winter of 1944 he received Bishop Heckel to discuss church matters with him. On the occasion of a journey to Rome in 1941 or 1942, he paid a long visit to the Pope.
DR. HORN: Was Ribbentrop of an introspective and secluded character, or was he not?
FRAULEIN BLANK: Yes, although I was his personal secretary for 10 years, I hardly ever saw him in a communicative mood. His time and thoughts were so completely occupied by his work, to which he devoted himself wholeheartedly, that there was no room for anything private. Apart from his wife and children there was nobody with whom Von Ribbentrop was on terms of close friendship. This, however, did not prevent him from having the welfare of his subordinates at heart and from showing them generosity, particularly in time of need.
DR. HORN: Is it true that you often felt that there were certain differences of opinion between Ribbentrop and Hitler?
FRAULEIN BLANK: Yes. True to his attitude, which I mentioned before, Von Ribbentrop never discussed such differences with his subordinates, but I do remember distinctly that there were times when such differences surely did exist. At such times the Fuehrer refused for weeks to receive Herr Von Ribbentrop. Ribbentrop suffered physically and mentally under such a state of affairs.
DR. HORN: Was Ribbentrop independent in the attainment of the goals of his foreign policy, or was he bound by orders and directives of the Fuehrer?
FRAULEIN BLANK: Ribbentrop often used the phrase that he was only the minister responsible for carrying out the Fuehrer's foreign policy. By this he meant that, in formulating his policy, he was not independent. In addition, even in carrying out the directives given him by the Fuehrer, he was to a large extent bound by instructions from Hitler. Thus, for instance, the daily reports of a purely informative nature transmitted by the liaison officer, Ambassador Hewel, between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Fuehrer were often accompanied by requests for the Fuehrer's decision on individual questions and by draft telegrams containing instructions to the heads of missions abroad.
DR. HORN: Did Ribbentrop suffer by the fact that, although he was responsible for foreign policy, he was not allowed to direct it?
FRAULEIN BLANK: He never complained about it in my presence, but I had the feeling that he did suffer.
DR. HORN: What was Hitler's attitude toward the Foreign Office?
FRAULEIN BLANK: The Fuehrer saw in the Foreign Office a body of ossified red-tape civil servants, more or less untouched by National Socialism. I gathered from men of his entourage, that he often made fun of the Foreign Office. He considered it to be the home of reaction and defeatism.
DR. HORN: In what way did Ribbentrop try to bring the Foreign Office closer to Hitler?
FRAULEIN BLANK: When taking over the Foreign Office in February 1938, Herr Von Ribbentrop intended to carry out a thorough reshuffle of the entire German diplomatic service. He also intended to make basic changes in the training of young diplomats. These plans did not go beyond the initial stage because of the war. In the course of the war they were taken up again when the, question of new blood for the Foreign Office became acute. Ribbentrop's anxiety to counteract the Fuehrer's animosity towards the Foreign Office led him to fill some of the posts of heads of missions abroad, not with professional diplomats, but with tried SA and SS leaders.
DR. HORN: What were Ribbentrop's views and intentions regarding Russia?
FRAULEIN BLANK: His intentions regarding Russia were shown by the Non-aggression Pact of August 1939, and the Trade Agreement of September 1939.
DR. HORN: Do you know that, in addition to the Non-aggression Pact and the Trade Agreement, a further agreement was concluded in Moscow?
FRAULEIN BLANK: Yes, there was an additional secret agreement.
GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors! It appears to me that the witness, who has been called to attend the present sitting of the Tribunal is, by the very nature of her position as secretary to the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ribbentrop, able to testify only to the personality of the defendant, to his way of life, to the reticence or frankness of his character, and so forth. But the witness is quite incompetent to pass an opinion on matters pertaining to agreements, foreign policy, et cetera . In this sense I consider the questions of the Defense absolutely inadmissible and request that they be withdrawn.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, that is the same matter that is raised, is it not, upon the affidavit of Dr. Gaus? I mean, you said that. you were going to produce an affidavit of Dr. Gaus which dealt with a secret agreement between -- can't you hear me? I beg your pardon. I ought, to have said that Dr. Seidl was going to produce an affidavit of Dr. Gaus with reference to this alleged agreement. That is right, is it not?
DR. HORN: I assume so, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Soviet Prosecutor objected to that agreement being referred to until the affidavit should be admitted, until it had been seen. Well, now, is the agreement in writing?
DR. HORN: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the alleged agreement between the Soviet Government and Germany in writing?
DR. HORN: Yes. It was put down in writing, but I am not in possession of a copy of the agreement, and I should therefore like to ask the Tribunal, in case the decision depends on the affidavit of Ambassador Gaus, to allow me to obtain, at the appropriate time, an affidavit from Fraulein Blank who saw the original. Would Your Lordship be agreeable to that?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, have you a copy of the agreement itself?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, there are only two copies of agreement. One copy was left in Moscow on 23 August 1930. The other copy was taken to Berlin by Von Ribbentrop. According to an announcement in the press all the archives of the Foreign Office were confiscated by the Soviet troops. May I, therefore, request that the Soviet Government or the Soviet Delegation be asked to submit to the Tribunal the original of the agreement?
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you a question, Dr. Seidl. I did not ask you for an argument. I asked you whether you have a copy of that agreement available.
DR. SEIDL: I, myself, am not in possession of a copy of the agreement. The affidavit of Ambassador Gaus only states the contents of the secret agreement. He was able to give the contents of the secret agreement because he drafted it. The secret agreement, as drafted by Ambassador Gaus, was signed by Foreign Commissar Molotov and Herr Von Ribbentrop. That is all I have to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, General Rudenko?