dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. HORN: I ask the Tribunal to permit me this witness, because the fact alone that the witness can testify about the sincerity or insincerity or the intentions of his chief is not so important for me as the fact that, on the basis of participation at the negotiations and preliminary negotiations and his discussions with other important persons about the background of this treaty, he can testify with regard to an important point of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you again, with reference to the relevance of this evidence, suppose it were true that in August 1939 the German authorities intended to keep the treaty which was made with Russia, that depended or might have depended upon whether England supported Poland in the war which Germany was about to begin with Poland; and it may very well be that the German authorities intended to keep the treaty with Russia in order to keep Russia out of the war with Poland and England. Therefore, how would the intention of Ribbentrop at that time be relevant?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, for determining the criminal facts in this case in order to establish guilt, it is material to know the extent to which the Defendant Ribbentrop, as a human being, strove to keep the treaty; and it is a different question how far he may have been compelled, by political necessity and other forces, to witness how a treaty was not kept in the sense in which it was originally signed.
THE PRESIDENT: You can pass on.
DR. HORN: Ambassador Ritter of the Foreign Office, eventually a liaison man with the OKW; at this time most probably in the internment camp at Augsburg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The application for Ambassador Ritter falls into two parts. One raises the point which we have just been discussing with regard to the Russo-German Treaty of 23 August 1939 , and I have indicated the view of the Prosecution on that. The second deals with the defendant's attitude with regard to the treatment of Allied airmen. The position at the moment is that I put in a document which was prepared by Ambassador Ritter and another document in which Ambassador Ritter said that the Defendant Ribbentrop had approved the memorandum from the German Foreign Office dealing with the proposals for lynching aviators and handing them over to the SD before they could become prisoners of war and entitled to the rights under the Convention. If it is desired to say that Ambassador Ritter was wrong in stating that Ribbentrop had approved the memorandum, then, of course, it would be a relevant point. But at the moment these documents are in, and I am not quite clear from this for what purpose my friend wishes him called on the second point. If there is any further purpose, then perhaps Dr. Horn will indicate it.
DR. HORN: Sir David has just stated the reason why I have requested the witness. The witness is supposed to and will testify that Von Ribbentrop was opposed to special treatment of terror fliers -- at least for acts covered by the Geneva Convention -- without previous notification to the signatory powers of that convention.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Horn says that he wants to call Ambassador Ritter to contradict the two documents prepared by Ambassador Ritter which are already in evidence. Then I can't make any objection. That is obviously a relevant point, if he is going to contradict his own document.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be acceptable to Dr. Horn to have interrogatories administered to Ambassador Ritter, or would the Prosecution prefer that he should be called, if he is to give evidence of any sort?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If he gives evidence, the Prosecution would prefer that he should be called, because that is our position. There are two documents in, prepared by this gentleman; and if he is going to contradict them, then I suggest he should come and do it in person.
DR. HORN: I leave it up to the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: The next witness is the former German Ambassador in Oslo, Von Grundherr, at present presumably in Allied custody.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again, I don't want to go into detail. The position is that there is a document before the Court signed by the Defendant Rosenberg in which he says that 10,000 pounds sterling a month were given to Quisling through an arrangement with this gentleman. If Dr. Horn wishes to call Herr Von Grundherr to contradict the statement of the Defendant Rosenberg, again I suppose the Prosecution cannot make any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: Regarding the witnesses which I have listed under points 30 to 34, I can limit my statement to the fact that I want to call them to testify that Ribbentrop, from 1933 to 1939, also earnestly and constantly endeavored to bring about close relations with France. The witnesses, above all M. Daladier, former Prime Minister of France, can give substantive, detailed evidence about these efforts. If the Court should decide that these witnesses, or some of these witnesses, could give their testimony in the form of affidavits, I will submit relevant questions to the Tribunal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In the submission of the Prosecution, the grounds stated for calling these witnesses are too vague and general to justify their being called before the Court. When two countries are at peace, the fact that a foreign minister or an ambassador has made statements saying that he hopes the good relations between the two countries will continue, or words to that effect, does not really take us any further; and it would, in the submission of the Prosecution, be a waste of time for witnesses to be called for such a purpose. Apart from that, the first four witnesses, the Marquis and Marquise De Polignac, and Count and Countess Jean de Castellane, as far as the Prosecution know, have not been in any official position, and there is, therefore, the additional objection that calling people who may be the most admirable people but are in a position of general friendship to talk as to what really becomes their view of the state of mind of a defendant, is not evidence which is relevant or which the Tribunal should entertain.
DR. HORN: With these witnesses the Defense wishes to prove exactly the fact that the efforts of Ribbentrop with respect to France went further than normal remarks which could not be called anything more than courtoisie internationale . For this reason I ask that one or the other of the witnesses in this group be granted me.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, these witnesses seem to raise the same question as to relevance as I put to you earlier on them. Assuming that it was the intention of the German Foreign Office to try to keep France out of any war which Germany was preparing to make, what relevance has that got to the question whether she was about to make an aggressive war upon Poland?
DR. HORN: I would like through these witnesses to produce evidence that it was at least not the intention of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop to plan and prepare wars but that he has tried for years to improve relations with Germany's neighboring states. The Prosecution, Mr. President, accuses my client also of having planned and carried out aggressive aims, war against England and France. If the Prosecution will forego this point, I, of course, can also forego these witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give this the necessary consideration.
DR. HORN: The next witness is Mr. Ernest Tennant of London.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to this witness, I don't know the gentleman, and I have never heard of him, and the only information which is in the application is that he is a member of the firm of Tennant and Company and a member of the Bath Club, and also that he was well known to the Defendant Ribbentrop. But the matters for which he is sought to be called are surely the acme of irrelevance. It is submitted that the witness can testify that in the early and middle 30's the defendant asked him to bring him in contact with Lord Baldwin, Mr. Macdonald, and Lord Davidson for the purpose of negotiating with the latter toward paving the way to good political relations, aiming at the conclusion of an alliance. In 1936 the defendant was Ambassador to the Court of St. James. Mr. Macdonald had just ceased being Prime Minister in 1935 and was still, I think, Lord President of the Council. Lord Baldwin was then Prime Minister and Lord Davidson, I think, was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the same administration. At any rate, he held a comparatively less important office. But how it can be relevant to the issues before this Tribunal, that at or shortly before that time the defendant asked a gentleman of no official position whether he could introduce him to the three gentlemen I have just mentioned, I really suggest, cannot be stated; and I submit that this witness should not be allowed.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, in the naming of witnesses we always come back to the same fundamental question. The Prosecution always raises the question: What can this witness tell us about the fact that Germany did or did not march against Poland, or is to blame for the Polish-German war, inasmuch as the witness comes from an entirely different country and has nothing to do with Poland or Polish affairs? The Defense is of the opinion, on the other hand, that the entire policy of Germany toward Poland can only be understood within the framework of the whole of European politics. Therefore, the Defense has called for witnesses whom the Prosecution would like to exclude, because they can offer us material for the reconstruction of the large picture. With this in mind, I also ask for Professor Conwell-Evans of London.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal again I have never heard of Professor Conwell-Evans, and he does not appear in the Who's Who , the British publication showing a very large number of the citizens who have certain grades of distinction or hold certain offices. But I would like Dr. Horn to consider this point, which I respectfully put to the Tribunal: Accepting that every word that is stated in this application with regard to Professor Conwell-Evans was said in Court by Professor Conwell-Evans, I submit that it would not advance the case at all and that the Tribunal would be left in exactly the same position if it had that evidence as it is in at the present moment. After all, the defendant will be able to give evidence himself and to make his own impression on the Tribunal as to his intentions and as to his honesty of mind at various times. The submission of the Prosecution is that the evidence of this gentleman would not help the Trial at all and is not relevant to any issue before the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: As next witness I name Wolfgang Michel, Oberstdorf in Allgau, the witness under Number 38.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This gentleman is stated to have been a partner in the defendant's former business. According to the application, it is really desired that he should give his views of the defendant's general attitude and state of mind. Again, the Prosecution fail to see to what issue he is relevant; but it may be that it would please the defendant to have affidavits from an old business partner to give his views on the defendant. If that is desired, the Prosecution would be prepared to consider such an affidavit; but they really must take up the consistent attitude that a witness of this kind is irrelevant -- a witness who is going to say, "I have known this defendant for 20 years; I have been in business with him; and I have always had a high opinion of him." That, in the submission of the Prosecution, does not touch the issues before this Tribunal and, therefore, is irrelevant. But, as I say, if my friend cares to produce an affidavit, the Prosecution will consider it with the greatest sympathy.
DR. HORN: I would be satisfied, in the case of the witness Michel, with an affidavit. Mr. President, I would like to come back to the witness listed under Number 5, Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Aren't you going to deal with Number 38? You didn't deal with 37. You are passing that over, are you?
DR. HORN: I believe that the same objections would be raised against him as were raised with reference to the other witnesses. Since I assume that the Tribunal is going to decide in principle about the question whether or not all the related facts should be submitted here, I have left out the naming of this witness and ask the Tribunal for a decision.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Now you want to go back to Number 5?
DR. HORN: I would like to come back to Number 5, Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen. Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen conducted the entire official and private finances of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop for many years. Ribbentrop has been accused by various members of the Prosecution of enriching himself with objects of art and similar things. About this point Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen can give decisive evidence which will invalidate these charges. I therefore ask for approval of this witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have just asked Dr. Horn on this point whether he would prefer Herr Gottfriedsen to Herr Von Sonnleitner. I think Dr. Horn says that, if there was a question of choice, he would. The Prosecution do not want to be unreasonable. I made my general statement that this group of witnesses, of seven foreign office witnesses, ought to be restricted to three. If my friend thinks that Herr Gottfriedsen will be more helpful, especially on this point, I have no objection to the substitution, so long as some limitation is made in the group of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be satisfactory if interrogatories were administered?
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President; in this case I ask for the witness Gottfriedsen.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: My statement on the subject of summoning witnesses is thereby concluded.
DR. STAHMER: I have not named some witnesses because other defendant's counsel had asked for them. Among these is also the interpreter Dr. Schmidt. I likewise have the greatest interest in the questioning of this witness. Schmidt was Goering's interpreter and was present at almost all foreign political negotiations with statesmen. Therefore I also ask for the summoning of this witness and to that extent support the application made by Dr. Horn.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that, Dr. Stahmer. We will adjourn now for 10 minutes. [A recess was taken.]
DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I please bring up one other point having to do with the calling of witnesses? I have also named a number of the witnesses because I must ascertain when the conspiracy in general begins and when my client could have joined this conspiracy. The Prosecution made things relatively easy for itself as regards setting the time at which the conspiracy begins, by stating in the general Indictment "sometime before 8 May 1945." Now, if I can call no witnesses with regard to the years 1933 to l938, then I must assume that the Prosecution admits that the Defendant Ribbentrop could not have been a party to the conspiracy at least before 1939. I should like this point of view to be taken into consideration in the granting of witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be helpful, if I indicated quite generally what Dr. Horn has to meet. The Tribunal will remember that on the 8th and 9th of January I presented the individual case against this defendant. The first point is the time of Hitler's accession to power in 1933. It is the case for the Prosecution that this defendant assisted in various ways in that accession. After that, he held various positions in close touch with Hitler. If Dr. Horn will refer to the transcript of my presentation, he will find that there is detailed, with a note of all the supporting documents, the part which his client played in the aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Poland, England, France, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, 25 Feb. 4.5 and finally, the United States and Japan. All these matters are set out with the supporting documents, and a reference to them will show exactly what is alleged against the defendant on that point. Apart from that, there are four matters under Counts Three and Four which are specially raised. First of all, the defendant pressed that measures contrary to international law and the conventions should be taken against Allied aviators. Again, the supporting documents are in evidence. Second, there is General Lahousen's evidence as to what the defendant said with regard to the treatment of the population of Poland. Third, there is the defendant's responsibility for putting the various Protectors of Bohemia and Moravia in office with unrestricted powers, which resulted in the crimes against the populations of these areas. Then there is a similar position with regard to the Netherlands. The third main category is the treatment of the Jews. Again, there is an American official document, the report of Ambassador Kennedy; there is a long Foreign Office statement on the policy towards the Jews; and there is a document showing the preparation for an anti-Semitic congress, of which this defendant was to be an honorary member.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Finally, there is the question of plunder, the evidence given by my Soviet colleague on the Ribbentrop battalions for the collection of plunder, which was given the other day. I don't think that if Dr. Horn will consider various points, which are practically all collected in the transcript for the 8th and 9th of January, except the last point, he will find that there is any difficulty in deciding the commencement of these allegations or their detailed and concrete constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know whether the Prosecution allege any particular date at which the conspiracy started; and second, they would like to know whether you contend that defendants joining the conspiracy after it started are responsible for the conspiracy. What the Tribunal would like to know is whether a person who joins the conspiracy after it started would be responsible for acts committed by the conspirators before he joined.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I might deal with the questions in order, the position of the Prosecution on the question of time is as set out in Count One of the Indictment. The Prosecution say that the Nazi Party was the core of the conspiracy and that it was an essential part of the conspiracy that the Nazi Party should obtain political and economic control of Germany in order that they might carry out the aims set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Nazi Party program. That part of the conspiracy started with the emergence of the Nazi Party as a force, in German politics and was fully developed in January 1933. At that time it was the aim of the Nazi Party to secure the breaches of the Treaty of Versailles and the other matters set out in these articles, if necessary by force. But, as is stated in the statement of offense under Count One of the Indictment, the conspiracy was not static; it was dynamic. And, in 1934, after Germany left the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference, the aggressive war aspect of the conspiracy increased in momentum. It is the case for the Prosecution that from 1935, when conscription was introduced and the Air Force came into being, through 1936 when the Rhineland was reoccupied, that the securing of Germany's objectives -- the objectives of the Nazi Party -- if necessary by aggressive war, became a stronger, clearer, and more binding aim. The position is crystallized by the meeting on the 5th of November 1937, when Hitler declared that Austria and Czechoslovakia would be conquered at the earliest opportunity. That was succeeded by the acquisition of Austria in March 1938, and the Fall Grun against Czechoslovakia, which originated in May 1938, to be carried out before October. From that time the Prosecution say that the plan of aggressive war followed the well-known and clear technique of attacking one country or taking aggressive measures against one country, and giving assurances to the country that was next on the list to be attacked.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: From that time the succession and procession of aggressive wars takes a clear course, which I have just mentioned in outlining the accusation of aggression against the Defendant Ribbentrop. I may summarize it by saying that the Prosecution submit that the Nazi Party was always engaged in this agreement and concerted action to get control of Germany and carry out its aims but that the aggression crystallized and became clear from 1934 and the beginning of 1935 onwards.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): Sir David, I would like to ask you a few questions in connection with this. First of all you must know either the date when the conspiracy began, or you must not be able to give us the date. Now, is it the contention that the Prosecution don't know when the conspiracy began? If you do know, would you tell us?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The conspiracy began with the formation of the Nazi Party.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what was that date?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 1921.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): 1921? Now, was the conspiracy to wage aggressive war begun on that date?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, it was begun in this way that Hitler had said, "I have certain objects, one of them being to break the Treaty of Versailles -- which means also breaking the treaty of friendship with the United States which has the same clauses -- and I shall attain these objects, if necessary by using force." That was always one of the beliefs and aims of the Party. Now, if people agree to commit an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal methods, that is, ipso facto , the committing of the offense of conspiracy. Conspiracy is constituted by the agreement, not by the acts carrying out the agreement. Therefore, in that way the conspiracy starts in 1921. But, as Mr. Justice Jackson made clear in his opening and as I have repeated this morning, the aims -- and more particularly the methods by which the conspirators sought to achieve these aims -- grew and acquired particular forms as the years went on. They appear to have acquired the special form and to have decided on the method of breaking the Treaty of Versailles in 1934 and bringing that to fruition in 1935. I am not seeking to avoid answering the question of the learned American Judge; but I am putting, in summary form, exactly what is stated in both the statement of offense and the particulars of offense under Count One, and I hope that I will not be thought to be avoiding the question. I am not doing that. I am trying to put it in the clearest and most accurate language.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I wouldn't ask you, were I clear about the matter in my own mind, Sir David. Let me ask you a few more questions. The conspiracy to commit Crimes against Humanity -- was that begun in 1921?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: To the extent that a general readiness was adopted to use all methods, irrespective of the rights, safety, and happiness of other people, it was commenced with the start of the Nazi Party. Ruthlessness and disregard for the rights, and safety, and happiness of others was a badge of the Nazi Party program, insofar as the rights and happiness of others might interfere with their aims, from the very start. Again, the translation of that into practical methods developed as the years went on, and in a period well before the war -- Mr. Biddle will not put it against me that I should remember exact documents in an answer straight off the rule to his question, but well before the war -- there will be found again and again in the speeches of Hitler to his associates that utter ruthlessness and disregard for non-German populations should be employed. That is the foundation of the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, and it was initiated and grew in the method which I have stated.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you answer the President with respect to the question of whether the conspirators joining later became responsible? If that were true, then this defendant would be responsible for acts running back to 1921.