dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR. ALDERMAN: In his lecture in Munich on 7 November 1943, the Defendant Jodl spoke as follows, and I quote from Page 5 of Document L-172, already received in evidence as Exhibit USA-34-on Page 8 of the German text: "The bloodless solution of the Czech conflict in the autumn of 1938 and spring of 1939 and the annexation of Slovakia rounded off the territory of Greater Germany in such a way that it now became possible to consider the Polish problem on the basis of more or less favorable strategic premises." In the speech to his military commanders on 23 November 1939, Hitler described the process by which he had rebuilt the military power of the Reich. This is our Document 789-PS, Exhibit USA-23. I quote one passage from the second paragraph: "The next step was Bohemia, Moravia, and Poland. This step also was not possible to accomplish in one campaign. First of all, the Western fortifications had to be finished. It was not possible to reach the goal in one effort. It was clear tome from the first moment, that I could not be satisfied with .the Sudeten German territory. That was only a partial solution. The decision to march into Bohemia was made. Then followed the erection of the Protectorate and with that the basis for the action against Poland was laid...." Before I leave the subject of the aggression against Czechoslovakia, I should like to submit to the Court a document which became available to us too late to be included in our document book. It reached me Saturday, late in the afternoon or late at night. This is an official document, again from the Czechoslovakian Government, a supplement to the Czechoslovakian report, which I had previously offered in evidence. I now offer it, identified as Document S061-PS, as Exhibit USA-126. The document was furnished us, if the Court please, in the German text with an English translation, which didn't seem to us quite adequate and we have had it re-translated into English and the translation has just been passed up, I believe, to the Tribunal. That mimeographed translation should be appended to our Document Book 0.
MR. ALDERMAN: I shall not read the report; it is about 12 pages long. The Court will take judicial notice of it, under the provisions of the Charter. I merely summarize. This document gives confirmation and corroboration to the other evidence which I presented to the Tribunal. In particular, it offers support to the following allegations: First, the close working relationship between Henlein and the SDP, on the one hand, and Hitler and Defendants Hess and Ribbentrop, on the other; Second, the use of the German Legation in Prague to direct the German Fifth Column activities; Third, the financing of the Henlein movement by agencies of the German Government, including the German diplomatic representatives at Prague; Fourth, the use of the Henlein movement to conduct espionage on direct orders from the Reich. In addition, this document gives further details of the circumstances of the visit of President Hacha to Berlin on the night of 14 March. It substantiates the fact that President Hacha - required the medical attention of Hitler's physician and it supports the threat which the Defendant Goering made to the Czech Delegation. Now, if it please the Tribunal, that concludes my presentation of what, to me, has always seemed one of the saddest chapters in human history, the rape and destruction of the frail little nation of Czechoslovakia.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, before I tender the evidence which I desire to place before the Tribunal, it might be convenient if I explained how the British case is to be divided up and who will present the different parts. I shall deal with the general treaties. After that, my learned friend, Colonel Griffith-Jones, will deal with . Poland. Thirdly, Major Elwyn Jones will deal with Norway and Denmark. Fourthly, Mr. Roberts will deal with Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg. Fifthly, Colonel Phillimore will deal with Greece and Yugoslavia. After that my friend, Mr. Alderman, of the American Delegation, will deal on behalf of both delegations with the aggression against the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. May I also, with the Tribunal's permission, say one word about the arrangements that we have made as to documents. Each of the defendants' counsel will have a copy of the document book-of the different document books-in English. In fact, 30 copies of the first four of our document books have already been placed in the defendants' Information Center. We hope that the last document book, dealing with Greece and Yugoslavia, will have the 30 copies placed there today. In addition, the defendants' counsel have at least six copies in German of every document. With regard to my own part of the case, the first section on general treaties, all the documents on this phase are in the Reichs gesetzblatt or Die Dokamente der Deutschen Politik, of which 10 copies have been made available to the defendants' counsel, so that with regard to the portion with which the Tribunal is immediately concerned, the defendants' counsel will have at least 16 copies in German of every document referred to. Finally, there is a copy of the Reichsgesetzblatt and Die Dokumente available for the Tribunal, other copies if they so desire, but one is placed ready for the Tribunal if any member wishes to refer to a German text.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you propose to call any oral witnesses?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord, no oral witnesses If the Tribunal please, before I come to the first treaty I want to make three quotations to deal with a point which was mentioned in the speech of my learned friend, the Attorney General, yesterday. It might be thought from the melancholy story of broken treaties and violated assurances, which the Tribunal has already heard, that Hitler and the Nazi Government did not even profess it necessary or desirable to keep the pledged word. Outwardly, however, the professions were very different. With regard to treaties, on the 18th of October 1933, Hitler said, "Whatever we have signed we will fulfill to the best of our ability." The Tribunal will note the reservation, "Whatever we have signed." But on the 21st of May 1935 Hitler said, "The German Government will scrupulously maintain every treaty voluntarily signed, even though it was concluded before their accession to power and office." On assurances Hitler was even more emphatic. In the same speech, the Reichstag. Speech on May 21, 1935, Hitler accepted assurances as being of equal obligation, and the world at that time could not know that that meant of no obligation at all. What he actually said was: "And when I now hear from the lips of a British statesman that such assurances are nothing and that the only proof of sincerity is the signature appended to collective pacts, I must ask Mr. Eden to be good enough to remember that it is a question of an assurance in any case. It is sometimes much easier to sign treaties with the mental reservations that one will reconsider one's attitude at the decisive hour than to declare before an entire nation and with full opportunity one's adherence to a policy which serves the course of peace because it rejects anything which leads to war." And then he proceeds with the illustration of his assurance to France. Never having seen the importance which Hitler wished the world to believe he attached to treaties, I shall ask the Tribunal in my part of the case to look at 15 only of the treaties which he and the Nazis broke.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The remainder of the 69 broken treaties shown on the chart and occurring between 1933 and 1941 will be dealt with by my learned friends. There is one final point as to the position of a treaty in German law, as I understand it. The appearance of a treaty in the Reichsgesetzblatt makes it part of the statute law of Germany, and that is by no means an uninteresting aspect of the breaches which shall put before the Tribunal. The first treaty to be dealt with is the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes , signed at The Hague on the 29th of July 1899. I ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the Convention, and for convenience I hand in as Exhibit GB-1 the British Document TC-1. The German reference is to the Reichsgesetzblatt for 1901, Number 44, Sections 401 to 404, an 482 and 483. The Tribunal will find the relevant charge in Appendix C as Charge 1. As the Attorney General said yesterday, these Hague Conventions are only the first gropings towards the rejection of the inevitability of war. They do not render the making of aggressive war a crime, but their milder terms were as readily broken a the more severe agreements. On 19 July 1899, Germany, Greece, Serbia, and 25 other nation signed a convention. Germany ratified the convention on 4 September 1900, Serbia on 11 May 1901, and Greece on 4 April 1901 By Article 12 of the treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, signed at the St. Germaine-en-Laye on 10 September 1919, the new Kingdom succeeded to all the old Serbian treaties, and later, as the Tribunal knows, changed its name to Yugoslavia. I think it is sufficient, unless the Tribunal wish otherwise, for me to read the first two articles only: "Article 1: With a view to obviating as far as possible recourse to force in the relations between states, the signatory powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the pacific settlement of international differences.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: "Article 2: In case of serious disagreement or conflict, before an appeal to arms the signatory powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly powers." After that the Convention deals with machinery, and I don't think, subject to any wish of the Tribunal, that it is necessary for me to deal with it in detail. The second treaty is the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes , signed at The Hague on the 18th of October 1907. Again I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this, and for convenience I hand in as Exhibit GB-2 the Final Act of the Conference at The Hague, which contains British Documents T-2, 3, and 4. The reference to this Convention in German is to the Reichsgesetzblatt for 1910, Number 52, Sections 22 to 25; and the relevant charge is Charge 2. This Convention was signed at The Hague by 44 nations, and it is in effect as to 31 nations, 28 signatories, and 3 adherents. For our- purposes it is in force as to the United States, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Russia. By the provisions of Article 91 it replaces the 1899 Convention as between the contracting powers. As Greece and Yugoslavia are parties to the 1899 Convention and not to the 1907, the 1899 Convention is in- effect with regard to them, and that explains the division of countries in Appendix C. Again I only desire that the Tribunal should look at the first two articles: "1. With a view to obviating as far as possible recourse to force in the relations between states, the contracting powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the pacific settlement of international differences." Then I don't think I need trouble to read 2. It is the same article as to mediation, and again, there are a number of machinery provisions. The third treaty is the Hague Convention relative to the opening of hostilities , signed at the same time. It is contained in the exhibit which I put in.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again I ask that judicial notice be taken of it. The British Document is TC-3. The German reference is the Reichsgesetzblatt for 1910, Number 2, Sections 82 to 102, and the reference in Appendix C to Charge 3. This Convention applies to Germany, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Russia. It relates to a procedural step in notifying one's prospective opponent before opening hostilities against him. It appears to have had its immediate origin in the Russo-Japanese war, 1904, when Japan attacked Russia without any previous warning. It will be noted that it does not fix any particular lapse of time between the giving of notice and the commencement of hostilities, but it does seek to maintain an absolutely minimum standard of international decency before the outbreak of war. Again, if I might refer the Tribunal to the first article "The contracting powers recognize that hostilities between them must not commence without a previous and explicit warning in the form of either a declaration of war, giving reasons, or an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war." Then there are a number again of machinery provisions, with which I shall not trouble the Tribunal. The fourth treaty is the Hague Convention 5 , respecting the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in case of war on land, signed at the same time. That is British Document TC-4, and the German reference is Reichsgesetzblatt 1910, Number 2, Sections 168 and 176. Reference in Appendix C is to Charge 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to give the German reference? If it is necessary for defendants' counsel, all right, but if not it need not be done.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I may omit them it will save some time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If any of the defendants' counsel want any specific reference perhaps they will be good enough to ask me.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Germany was an original signatory to the Convention , and the Treaty is in force as a result of ratification or adherence between Germany and Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the U.S.S.R., and the United States. I call the attention of the Tribunal to the short contents of Article 1, "The territory of neutral powers is inviolable." A point does arise, however, on this Convention . I want to make this clear at once. Under Article 20 , the provisions of the present Convention do not apply except between the contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention . As Great Britain and France entered the war within 2 days of the outbreak of the war between Germany and Poland, and one of these powers had not ratified the Convention , it is arguable that its provisions did not apply to the second World War. I do not want the time of the Tribunal to be occupied by an argument on that point when there are so many more important treaties to be considered. Therefore, I do not press that as a charge of a breach of treaty. I merely call the attention of the Tribunal to the terms of Article 1 as showing the state of international opinion at that time and as an element in the aggressive character of the war which we are considering.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this would be a good time to break off. [A recess was taken until 1400 hours.] Afternoon Session
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As the Tribunal adjourned I had come to the fifth treaty, the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles the 28th of June 1919. I again ask the Tribunal to take judicial cognizance of this treaty, and I again hand in for convenience Exhibit GB-3, which is a copy of the treaty, including the British documents TC-5 to TC-10 inclusive. The reference in Appendix C is to Charge 5. Before I deal with the relevant portions, may I explain very briefly the layout of the treaty. Part I contains the Covenant of the League of Nations, and Part II sets the boundaries of Germany in Europe. These boundaries are described in detail but Part II makes no provision for guaranteeing these boundaries. Part III, Articles 31 to 117 , with which the Tribunal is concerned, contains the political clauses for Europe. In it, Germany guarantees certain territorial boundaries in Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, Poland, Memel, Danzig, and so forth. It might be convenient for the Tribunal to note, at the moment, the interweaving of this treaty with the next, which is the Treaty for the Restoration of Friendly Relations between the United States and Germany. Parts I , II , and III of the Versailles Treaty are not included in the United States treaty. Parts IV , V , VI , VIII , IX , X , XI , XII , XIV , and XV are all repeated verbatim in the United States treaty from the Treaty of Versailles. The Tribunal is concerned with Part V -the military, naval, and air clauses. Parts VII and XIII are not included in the United States treaty. I don't think there is any reason to explain what the parts are, but if the Tribunal wishes to know about any specific part, I shall be very happy to explain it. The first part that the Tribunal is concerned with is that contained in the British Document TC-5, and consists of Articles 42 to 44 dealing with the Rhineland. These are very short, and as they are repeated in the Locarno Treaty, perhaps I had better read them once, just so that the Tribunal will have them in mind.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: "Article 42: Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications either on the left bank of the Rhine or on the right bank to the west of a line drawn 50 kilometers to the east of the Rhine. "Article 43: In the area defined above, the maintenance and the assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily, and military maneuvers of any kind, as well as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilization are in the same way forbidden. "Article 44: In case Germany violates in any manner whatever the provisions of Articles 42 and 43, she shall be regarded as committing a hostile act against the powers signatory of the present treaty and as calculated to disturb the peace of the world." I am not going to put in evidence, but I simply draw the Tribunal's attention to a document of which they can take judicial notice, as it has been published by the German State, the memorandum of March 7, 1936, giving their account of the breach. The matters regarding the breach have been dealt with by my friend, Mr. Alderman, and I don't propose to go over the ground again. The next part of the treaty is in the British Document TC-6, dealing with Austria: " Article 80 : Germany acknowledges and will respect strictly the independence of Austria within the frontiers which may be fixed in a treaty between that state and the Principal Allied and Associated Powers; she agrees that this independence shall be inalienable, except with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations." Again in the same way, the proclamation of Hitler dealing with Austria, the background of which has been dealt with by my friend, Mr. Alderman, is attached as TC-47. I do not intend to read it because the Tribunal can again take judicial notice of the public proclamation.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Next is Document TC-8, dealing with Memel: "Germany renounces, in favor of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, all rights and title over the territories included between the Baltic, the northeastern frontier of East Prussia as defined in Article 28 of Part II , (Boundaries of Germany) of the present treaty, and the former frontier between Germany and Russia. "Germany undertakes to accept the settlement made by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in regard to these territories, particularly insofar as concerns the nationality of inhabitants." I don't think that the Tribunal has had any reference to the formal document of incorporation of Memel, of which again the Tribunal can take judicial notice; and I put in, for convenience, a copy as GB-4. It is British Document TC-53A, and it appears in our book. It is very short, so perhaps the Tribunal will bear with me while I read it: "The Transfer Commissioner for the Memel territory, Gauleiter und Oberprasident Erich Koch, effected on 3 April during a conference at Memel, the final incorporation of the Memel territory into the National Socialist Party Gau of East Prussia and into the state administration of the East Prussian Regierungsbezirk of Gumbinnen ...." Then, next we come to TC-9, which is the article relating to Danzig, Article 100 , and I shall read only the first sentence, because the remainder consists of geographical boundaries: "Germany renounces, in favor of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, all rights and title over the territory comprised within the following limits...." -And then the limits are set out and are described in a German map attached to the treaty. Lieutenant Colonel Griffith-Jones, who will deal with this part of the case, will formally prove the documents relating to the occupation of Danzig, and I shall not trouble the Tribunal with them now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: ~ ' So if the Tribunal would go on to British Document TC-7-that is Article 81 , dealing with the Czechoslovak State: "Germany, in conformity with' the action already taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, recognizes the complete independence of the Czechoslovak State, which will include the autonomous territory of the Ruthenians to the south of the Carpathians. Germany hereby recognizes the frontiers of this state as determined by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and other interested states." Mr. Alderman has dealt with this matter only this morning, and he has already put in an exhibit giving in detail the conference between Hitler and President Hacha, and the Foreign Minister Chvalkowsky, at which the Defendants Goering and Keitel were present. Therefore, I am not going to put in to the Tribunal the British translation of the captured Foreign Office minutes, which occurs in TC-48; but I put in formally, as Mr. Alderman asked me to this morning, as GB-6, the Document TC-49, which is the agreement signed by Hitler and the Defendant Ribbentrop for Germany and Dr. Hacha and Dr. Chvalkowsky for Czechoslovakia. It is an agreement of which the Tribunal will take judicial notice. I am afraid I can't quite remember whether Mr. Alderman read it this morning; it is Document TC-49. He certainly referred to it.
THE PRESIDENT: No, he did not read it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then perhaps I might read it. Text of the: "Agreement between the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler and the President of the Czechoslovak State Dr. Hacha .... "The Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor today received in Berlin, at their own request, the President of the Czechoslovak State, Dr. Hacha, and the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister, Dr. Chvalkowsky, in the presence of Herr von Ribbentrop, the Foreign Minister of the Reich. At this meeting the serious situation which had arisen within the previous territory of Czechoslovakia, owing to the events of recent weeks, was subjected to a completely open examination. The conviction was unanimously expressed on both sides that the object of all their efforts must be to assure quiet, order, and peace in this part of Central Europe. The President of the Czechoslovak State declared that, in order to serve this end and to reach a final pacification, he confidently placed the fate of the Czech people and of their country in the hands of the Fuehrer of the German Reich. The Fuehrer accepted this declaration and ' expressed his decision to assure to the Czech people, under the protection of the German Reich, the autonomous development of their national life, in accordance with their special characteristics. In witness whereof this document is signed in duplicate." The signatures I mentioned appear. The Tribunal will understand that it is not my province to make any comment; that has been done by Mr. Alderman. And I am not putting forward any of the documents I read as having my support; they are merely put forward factually as part of the case The next document, which I put in as GB-7, is the British Document TC-50. That is Hitler's proclamation to the German people, dated the 15th of March 1939. Again, I don't think that Mr. Alderman read that document.
THE PRESIDENT: No, he did not read it.