dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Oh, yes; Your Lordship will see that on the left column are the documents which the Prosecution would object to, and in the middle column are those that they would allow, and there are remarks on the right-hand side. Although this does not show it, I have, for convenience, divided these documents up into nine groups; and so I think I need not go through all the documents in detail unless there is any particular question on any one of them. Before saying what the groups are, perhaps I might make two general remarks, that the Prosecution takes the position that the German White Books , which figure very largely in this list -- White Books issued by the government of the Nazi conspirators, -- cannot be regarded as evidence of facts, stated therein; and secondly, that there are among these documents a considerable number which are only discussions of subjects in a very vague and tentative stage, and a great many of them, in the Prosecution's view, are cumulative. Now, of the first of the nine groups, I have broken them down to Czechoslovakia; and if you will look at the note that I have handed up, that consists of the first few documents down to 45. I beg your Lordship's pardon. That is wrong. From after 45, there are six PS documents which are already exhibits and there are 46 and 47 and over the page there are 7 more on Czechoslovakia, and the Prosecution's position on those is that six PS documents are allowed and 46 and 47; but, over the page, 66, 67, and 69 are objected to purely on the ground that they are cumulative -- cumulative, I think of Number 68.
THE PRESIDENT: Which volume are they in, 66 and 69?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: In Volume 3, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: As they have already been translated does it make much difference if there are objections that they are cumulative?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, there is not any difference, My Lord, at all, except if they are going to be read into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: They have all been translated?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: They have all been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: And in the other languages, too?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I understand so, My Lord,, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: So they need not be read into the record.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: If your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the rule, isn't it, that if they have been translated into the four languages, they need not be read into the record?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: That would apply to all the documents in all these nine books now because they all have been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it would; but there may be other objections to the documents besides their being cumulative.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: There will be, according to the Prosecution's submission, a very large number that are cumulative in toto.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be a very large number?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the point was that, being translated, they are there already.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is the only point the Prosecution has against those. The thing is, My Lord, the Prosecution say they are cumulative. Of course, Dr. Horn might not say so and perhaps he would welcome a ruling as to whether they should be used or not.
THE PRESIDENT: No. What I was suggesting to you was that if the only objection to them was that they were cumulative they may just as well go in, be put in evidence, because they have already been translated -- it saves time -- as to have them all argued.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes, My Lord, unless Dr. Horn wishes to read any of these documents and refer to them specifically.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you mean that he might read them all and then ...
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I do not know what Your Lordship is going to allow him to do. I understood perhaps he would read some of them.
THE PRESIDENT: Presumably, if he reads many that are cumulative, we shall stop him.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I will pass on to the second group, which are Numbers 48 to 62 inclusive, and those are on the subject of Allied rearmament and alleged warlike intentions before the outbreak of war. Number 54 appears to be missing from my book, and I do not know whether it was intentionally left out. The Prosecution would object to all those on the ground that they are irrelevant. They are in Book 3, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: 59 is different, isn't it? 59 is dealing with a speech by Sir Malcolm MacDonald about the colonies.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes. That is not exactly rearmament, but of course it is on the same theme in a way, that it is a provocation to war. It is certainly in rather a different category from the others.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: The third group deals with Poland, and that is a very large group because it includes all the negotiations before the outbreak of the war, and the numbers involved in that group are 74 to 214. I think it would perhaps be convenient to break that group down into two phases. The first one would be the questions of the minorities and Danzig and the Corridor and the incidents connected with them, and the second phase -- slightly overlapping in time, but roughly it follows after the other one -- would be the diplomatic events involving countries other than Poland, that is to say, very approximately from the 15th of March 1939 onwards. The first phase of that group would be Numbers 74 to 181, and the second phase 182 to 214. Now, in regard to the first phase, there are two points. The Prosecution says that these are, with very few exceptions, irrelevant because they treat of incidents and the problems arising out of these minority questions, and the Prosecution says those are irrelevant for two reasons. One of the documents among them consists of an exchange of notes between the German and Polish governments on the 28th of April 1939. That is TC-72, Number 14, in Book 5. And that exchange of n6tes consists of a confirmation that both parties unconditionally renounce the use of force on the basis of the Kellogg Pact. That had been done previously on the 26th of January 1934, as appears in another document here. It is on Page 2 of my note, TC-21.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the date of TC-72?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: TC-72, Number 14, was the 28th of April 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: And on the footing that the two countries unconditionally renounced the use of force on the basis of the Kellogg Pact, added to the fact that the Defendant Ribbentrop has himself said that during 1938 Germany was on very good terms with Poland. And also there was a declaration made by Germany and Poland on the 5th of November 1937 about minorities -- that is Number 123 in this list of documents; it occurs at the top of Page 4 in the note. In view of these things, the Prosecution says that the accounts of these and reports of these incidents and minority problems are irrelevant and very old history. I think perhaps I might ...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have them all cumulative irrelevant starting with 76. You mean the cumulative?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, I am afraid to say, Your Honor, this was originally got out purely as a working note, and that is rather an error. It should be irrelevant on account of TC-21.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: My Lord, I was going to say that perhaps I might anticipate an objection that Dr. Horn has been good enough to tell me that he will make to this, that yesterday he contended that certain incidents before Munich had been condoned by the Munich Agreement, and that the argument I have just put up is on the same lines as that which the Tribunal turned down yesterday. But, of course, there is this difference, that the Munich Agreement was negotiated in ignorance of the Fall Grun and that, from the point of view of condoning previous incidents, it is not on the same footing as an agreement negotiated in full knowledge of the circumstances. So, My Lord, taking Group 3, Poland and the first phase of it, the Prosecution would suggest -- looking at the middle column on Page 2 -- allowing Number 75, which is the Polish Treaty of 1919, and TC-21, which I have already mentioned, which reaffirmed the Kellogg Pact, and Number 123 and TC-72, Number 14 and 16, which I have already mentioned. The remainder, perhaps, might all be said to be irrelevant; but it would be reasonable, perhaps, to allow Numbers 117, 149, 150, 153, 154, 159, 160, 163, and TC-72, Number 18. These were largely discussions between ambassadors and heads of state, which may have rather more importance than the other documents in this particular group. As a matter of fact, My Lord, I think they are all in anyhow, those that I have just mentioned. That goes up to 182. Starting now at 182, and the first five, 182 to 186 ...
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you object to 155 which is the calling out of Polish reserves, 155 to 158?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, My Lord, the objection to that was simply based on the fact that ...
THE PRESIDENT: I think they are all mentioned in the conversation which is 159, and that is probably the reason.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Yes. I am obliged, Your Lordship. I think that it is so, but I do not think the objection to them could be very strong.
THE PRESIDENT: No.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Numbers 182 to 1865, My Lord, they are reports by the German charges d'affaires in various capitals, and the Prosecution say that those would not be proper evidence.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Why not?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, they are just accounts of the German charges d'affaires observations and conclusions of fact, for the most part by them, transmitted to their Foreign Office.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you mean they are irrelevant on the ground of hearsay? MAJOR BARRINGTON, I beg your pardon.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Because they are hearsay they should not be admitted; is that what you mean?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, they are, of course, partly hearsay. They are also vague, and again, they are transmitted with an object in view. At least that has been the submission of the Prosecution, that they are transmitted to color the picture from the German point of view.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Would you admit these if they were made by charges d'affaires of other states?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: If they were made by charges d'affaires of other states?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, they would be admissible if they were put in as government reports by Allied nations under the Charter; but they are not really admissible if they are German documents.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I am sorry; I do not know what you mean.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, Article 21 of the Charter ...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I am sorry. Perhaps I do not make myself clear. I do not quite understand why these are different from any other official reports made by charges d'affaires of any country. Is it because they are German reports?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Because they are German reports.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Oh, I see. In other words, you think German reports should be excluded.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I think under the Charter they should be excluded, except, of course, if they are used by the Prosecution as admissions against the German Government itself.
THE PRESIDENT: We are going to hear you in a moment, Dr. Horn. Anyhow, Mr. Barrington, your objection to 182 to 214 is that it is self-serving evidence and therefore not admissible; is that it?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is right, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other objection to them?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, they are, as I said, conclusions of fact drawn by an observer in a foreign country. They tend to get rather vague.
THE PRESIDENT: That might apply to a great deal of the evidence.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Numbers 187 to 192 and TC-77 there is no objection to. Number 193 and 194 are German Foreign Office memoranda and they are mere discussions, internal to the German Foreign Office. 193 is a memorandum of the State Secretary of the Foreign Office, and it deals with a visit to him of the French Ambassador. And Number 194 is similar, a visit of the British Ambassador. Number 195, that is Sir Nevile Henderson's White Paper, Failure of a Mission , and there are a number of extracts from that; it is a book and there are a number of extracts from that in the document book and it is contended that they are cumulative of evidence which has already been given and that in particular most of them are really provocative. That applies particularly to the first extract.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by provocative?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, Your Lordship will see that in the first extract there are some rather strongly worded opinions.
THE PRESIDENT: Which book are they in?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: They are in Book 6, My Lord. There are some rather strongly worded opinions about the position of Soviet Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Number 196 and 197 are German memoranda and reports for Foreign Office use, and they cover the same category as 193 and 194. One of them is internal to the Foreign Office and the other from the German charge d'affaires in Washington. Numbers 198 to 203 are all right. Number 204 is objected to as not being evidence; it is a memorandum of the Director of the Political Department of the Foreign Office in Berlin, and it merely talks of a report in the Berliner Borsenzeitung . It is merely secondhand evidence. Number 205 and 206 are not objected to.. The next one, TC-72, Number 74, is not objected to. Number 207 is the same document as the previous one. It is a mere repetition. Now, Number 208, My Lord; consists of a collection of extracts from the British Blue Book , and I am afraid I have not had time to check up which of them are actually in evidence already. But it is clear that the majority of them are obviously relevant, but it is suggested that those in the left-hand column do include unnecessary detail in view of the rest of them. Number 209, there is no objection. Number 210 is a conversation between the Defendant Ribbentrop and Sir Nevile Henderson on the 30th of August 1939, and that of course has been the subject of evidence already and is perhaps in any event cumulative for that reason. Number 211(a) and 211(b) are just repetitions of documents quoted from the British Blue Book . Number 212 is a Polish wireless broadcast, and Number 213 is a German communique to the German public, and it is contended that those have no evidential value. Number 214 is an extract from a book which the Tribunal has already refused to the defendants. Now, the next page of the note, My Lord, deals with my next group, which is Norway and Denmark.
THE PRESIDENT: Group 4, is it? Group 4, is that right?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: That is Group 4, My Lord, yes. 215(a) and 215(b) deal with the case of Iceland and Greenland. They are not very long documents; they are just considered to be irrelevant. Objection to them could not be very strong. There is no objection to 216(a) and 216(b), which are already in evidence, I think; and D-629 is also already in evidence. Number 217 is simply an interview which the Defendant Ribbentrop gave to the press, which the Prosecution says is not proper evidence. Number 004-PS is already in evidence. Number 218 and 219, 1 think, are also in evidence. Number 220 again is objected to as it is simply an interview with the press.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you object to those two Ribbentrop communications to the press?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: It is self-created evidence, My Lord. He has presumably given that evidence already. He had not given it at the same time.
THE PRESIDENT: What he said 6 years ago might be relevant.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Well, if Your Lordship thinks so; but the point I was making is simply that it is self-created evidence and created at the time with a view to create an impression. It is propaganda.
THE PRESIDENT: You may say that, yes.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: Then, My Lord, the next group is the Low Countries. That group really began at 218, of course, and it goes on to 240 ...
THE PRESIDENT: Is this another group? Communique of the 5th group?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: This is the fifth group, My Lord, yes. That goes on from 218 to 245, and I shall not deal in detail with that because the French Chief Prosecutor is going to speak about that. And the same with the next group, Number 6, which is the Balkans. The French Chief Prosecutor will deal with that, Documents 246 to 278. The next group, Number 7, is Russia, that is, Documents 280 to 295, with the exception, I think of 285(a), which seems to have got there by mistake; it appears to refer to the United States. Number 279 -- I cannot identify from the English translation what it is at all. Perhaps Your Lordship will be good enough to make an amendment against Numbers 232 and 283; they should be put into the middle column, there being no objection to them. But there is an objection to all the other Russian documents. Your Lordship will see, beginning at the bottom of the group, 291 to 295, they all concern the Anticomintern. Pact. Working up the page again from the bottom, 290, 1 to 5, are extracts from the book which the Tribunal has already refused. And, of the documents above that, 280 is Hitler's speech about Russia in October 1939. And 281 is a repetition of a document we have already had, Number 274, which is the Three Power Pact. That will be dealt with.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that that is a textual reproduction?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I think I am right in saying that it is actually a textual reproduction.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But why is there an objection if it is simply a textual reproduction? The Prosecution has been given textual reproduction.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: There is no objection at all.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean it is not in the right column?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I was putting in the Allied column only the ones which could make up a complete set according to the Prosecution's views.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Is that true of 284 also, the Soviet-German pact?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: I do not know whether that has come before ...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Why do you object to that then?
THE PRESIDENT: By "Pact," is it the German Pact of the 28th of September 1939?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: This is the 28th of September 1939. 1 am told that there is no objection to that. Number 285 is again simply a German report which draws conclusions of facts, and the Prosecution says that has no proper evidential value. It is a very long report by the German Foreign Office concerning the agitation in Europe against the German Reich by the Soviet Union, and it is full of conclusions of fact and opinions.
THE PRESIDENT: It is after the date of the beginning of war against Russia?
MAJOR BARRINGTON: It is after the beginning of that war, My Lord, yes. Number 286 and 287, those are objected to as being without value as evidence. They come from the Volkischer Beobachter . Number 288 is said to be a captured Soviet document; but it has deteriorated generally in the English version, had no date and no signature, and it seems of very doubtful value. Number 289 is a report from the Yugoslav military attache in Moscow, which is also thought to be irrelevant by the Prosecution. Then Group Number 8, My Lord, is the group concerning the United States of America, Documents 299 to 310, and including 285(a). The first ten documents, Your Lordship will see, are reports from, we would say they come from a very indirect source, the process report by the Polish Ambassador on the political situation in the United States in 1939. The next one seems to come from Portugal, the next from the Polish Ambassador again, the next two also from the Polish Ambassador. Then the next one, Number 300, is President Roosevelt's Quarantine Speech in 1937, which seems too far back to be of any proper relevance. Number 301 is a German summary of events in the United States, which we say is irrelevant for the reasons I have stated: That they are German summaries, rather more unreliable than irrelevant. Number 302 again is the Polish Ambassador's report. Number 303 is a statement by President Roosevelt in 1936, and Number 304 is President Roosevelt's message to Congress on the 4th of January 1939. I do not think there is anything very objectionable about that. To numbers 305 to 308, there is no objection; 309 -- in my copy there are two different versions of 309. The first one is a German summary of the facts without any dates and with no sources indicated. It seems to be of no proper value as evidence, and the second one, 309 and 309(a), are declarations of the Pan-American Conference and the German note in reply to it. I do not think the Prosecution can take a very strong objection to that, but it does not seem to be very closely in point.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: TC-72, Number 127, and TC-72, Number 124, are both appeals of President Roosevelt to Hitler and are not objected to. 310 is another German summary of facts without any sources indicated. The ninth group is simply a miscellaneous group; and, if My Lordship will turn back to the first page of my note, it is the first 8 documents on that page, down to Number 45. They are all allowed. There is no objection to them, except Number 12, which is the announcement of the Reichstag election results. It does not seem to matter one way or the other whether that is in. Number 45 is Lord Rothermere's book of predictions and prophecies, Warnings and Prophecies . I think the Prosecution contends that it is not relevant evidence in this case. The next lot of miscellaneous ones is on Page 2, Numbers 70 to 73. Number 71 is the German-Lithuanian treaty about Memel, and there is no objection. Number 70 is thought to be rather irrelevant. Numbers 72 and 73 are objected to because they deal with the Fourteen Points of President Wilson. The next lot of miscellaneous ones is on the last page of one of my notes right down at the bottom, Number 296, and that is a speech by Hitler on the Rhineland. You have all the evidence that has been given. It appears to be rather cumulative, if it is not in already. I have not actually checked whether it is in. Number 298 on the top of the next page is, in fact, superfluous. It is the same as Number 274. And down at the bottom of the last page, My Lord, 311, is a paper written by the Defendant Ribbentrop on the Fuehrer's personality.
THE PRESIDENT: That has already been ruled out.
MAJOR BARRINGTON: That, I think, has been ruled out this morning by Your Lordship. Number 312 is an affidavit of Frau Von Ribbentrop. Number 313 is an affidavit of Dr. Gottfriedsen. I understand from Dr. Horn that, although he had been allowed Dr. Gottfriedsen as a witness, he thinks it will save time if he reads the affidavit or a part of it. Perhaps, if Your Lordship will allow the Prosecution to make what comments they think fit when he comes to do that, it would be the best way of treating it. That is all -- all my points, My Lord. There are just the Low Countries and the Balkans.
MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal, it is true that Mr. Barrington has spoken for all of us; and I do not intend to go over any of these documents, except this, because I fear there is some question in the minds of the members of the Tribunal about our objection running from 76 through 116, 118 to 122, and 114 to 148, the Polish documents. We also say, of course, with Major Barrington that they are cumulative, but it seems to me there is a much more basic objection. Perhaps they all have to do with the alleged incidents inside Poland and they were published in these White Papers . These incidents involved the mistreatment of Polish citizens inside Poland who were perhaps of German extraction. Well, it is our view that such documents are irrelevant here because that is no defense at al to the charges; and we cannot permit, we say, a nation to defend itself or these defendants to defend themselves on charges such a have been preferred here, by proving that citizens of another state although they may have been of German extraction or any other extraction, were mistreated inside that state. Beginning with 7 running through to 116, 118 through 122, 114 through 148, and 15 through 152 -- it is 124 through 148 rather than 114 through 148 124 through 148. The last are 151 and 152.