considering their relevance -- the defense has always been told that for such an objection the time had not yet come for the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon, Dr. Stahmer, but you misunderstood. The defense have never been told that objections to the admissibility of documents could be left over until later. Every objection to the admissibility of a document has been dealt with at the time. Observations upon the weight of the document are to be dealt with now, during the course of the defense. I don't mean today, but during the course of the defense. and the weight of a document, and all questions of admissibility have been dealt with.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I understand that distinction. I only wanted to say that the objections against admissibility were not admitted -- I didn't want to say that, but rather the question of objection against the relevancy.
THE PRESIDENT: Objections to the relevancy of documents -- that is to say, their admissibility -- that is the governing consideration under this Charter as to the admissibility of documents. If they are relevant, they are admissible. That is what the Charter says. And any objection which has been made to documents or to evidence by defendants' counsel has been heard by the Tribunal and has been decided at the time.
Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal wishes me to point out to defendants' counsel that they have had long notice of this form of procedure, long notice that under Article 24-D they were going to be called upon to specify or name their witnesses and the documents which they wish to produce, and to state what the relevance of the witnesses and the documents would be.
when one remembers that it is, Top the Tribunal, a very great difficult and considerable expense to find these witnesses and to bring them to Nurnberg; and to find the documents, if possible, and to bring them to Nurnberg.
Now , as to Dr. Horn's objections to the procedure which has been adopted which reference to the prosecution, it is open to defendant's counsel at any time, if they wish to do so, to apply to strike from the record any document which they think ought not to have been admitted. One of his objections, or possibly your objection, appears to be that defendant's counsel have not had sufficient time to consider whether a particular document or a particular witness was relevant, and therefore admissible. You have had ample time to consider the point and if now you wish to apply to strike out any document or to strike out any evidence, you will make that application in writing and the Tribunal will consider it.
As I have said, the object of the procedure is to help the defendant's and their counsel, And it is a necessary procedure because the defendant's are unable, naturally, and defendant's counsel are unable, naturally, to procure the attendance of witnesses here in Nurnberg, and in some cases to procure the production of documents. should know whom they want to have produced here, what documents they want to have produced here; and, in order that time should not be wasted and money should not be unduly wasted, it is necessary to Know whether the witnesses and the documents have any shadow of relevancy to the issues raised.
DR. STAHMER: I will begin the naming of the witnesses with the naming of the witness whose testimoney before this Court I consider necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not desire you to read your application If you will just say in your own words, as shortly as you can, why you want the particular witness, they will then consider it. And if counsel for the prosecution wish to object, they will do so.
Then the Tribunal will finally decide the matter.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir, I understand. who is here in Nurnberg in the prison, has been, since 1933, First an adjutant and later a Minister; that is, Chief of the Ministeria 1 Office of Goering, He was together with Goering and, therefore, he is informed about all essentiall facts of that time. detail, are in my written statement, but especially that he took part in a conference which took place at the begginning of August 1939, at which Goering was present, together with British members of Parliament. Among them they discussed the possibility of a peaceful solution of the, at that time, already existing difficulties between Germany and Poland. At that time he had mentioned to the British members of Parliament that in no case would it come to a war, and that they should try to see to it that these difficulties could be straightened out peacefully. the years, particularly 1936 to 1939, from which statements the intention can be seen of the defendant Goering to avoid a war if possible, and he thought that the policy of the Reich should be that under no conditions should it come to a war. for the first time, heard from Hitler that Hitler had the intentions of going against Russia, of attacking Russia.
had an opportunity to know very well, particularly after 1939. witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE; May it please the Tribunal, may I say one general word about the procedure of the prosecution? these particular applications. There will be some of them, if the Tribunal pleases, on which certain of my colleagues would like to add a word as they have. special intrests in them. But in general , and on the whole I shall deal with the application for the prosecution. there is any point of relevance in a witness for whome application is made, they will not of course object. But they want to make it quite clear, so the Tribunal will understand, that they are not , by making no objections, accepting the position that every point set out in the document or mentioned by counsel is admitted to be relevant. By making no objections they are simply admitting that there is some relevant point in the matter put forward.
in the matter--the prosecution make no objection in the case of General von Bodenschatz.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: I name further, as witness, the former Gauleiter, Dr. Uiberreither, who at this time is at the prison in Nurnberg. Uiberreither is to give the following information. He can give information about a speech-
THE PRESIDENT: I wish to say to Sir David that perhaps, in view of what you have said, you might be able to indicate at the opening of Dr. Stahmer's motion in respect to each witness whether the prosecution have any objection to the witness. Perhaps that would make it easier for him to deal shortly with it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I say that we have no objection to Dr. Uiberreither, on the same basis as I mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: I only meant that if counsel for the prosecution indicate to us that they have no objection to a particular witness, then Dr. Stahmer can deal more shortly with the witness.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Just inform us what the relevance of the evidence is, but do it shortly because the prosecution have got no objection.
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In the case of this particular witness, wouldn't it be equally convenient for the defense, for the prupose of shortening things, to have this evidence taken either by an affidavit or by interrogatories?
DR. STHAMER: Regarding the witness Uiberreither, I have no question -- If I have the possibility to get a statement from the witness himself-
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass on, you might just tell us what the substance of the evidence is.
DR. STAHMER: Uiberreither was present when Goering in the summer of 1938 spoke before the new gauleiters from Austria and in this speech dealt with the policy of the Reich and he spoke about the aims of the Four Year Plan in considerable detail. November 1938, after the pogroms against the Jews, called the Gauleiters to Berlin and there criticised those actions very severely.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then we can pass on to Number Three now.
DR. STAHMER: The witness which I name next is Lord Halifax. Referring to this witness-
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I may indicate--the interrogatories have been served on and answered by Lord Halifax. The Prosecution has no objection to the interrogatories. Of course, they object to his being called, but we understand that the Tribunal and Dr. Stahmer agree to Lord Halifax being dealt with by means of interrogatories, and we have no objections.
DR. STAHMER: I am perfectly satisfied with the interrogatories which I have already received, so I do not insist on calling the witness personally before this Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: The next witness is the witness Forbes. I may say that also in this case a interrogatory was accepted, and the interrogatory, as much as I have found out, has been sent out already. I have not received an answer, however.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, we have no objection to Sir George OgilvieForbes being dealt with by interrogatories. I will do my best to see that the answer is forthcoming as soon as possible. My recollections--I wasn't able to check it--is that Sir Goerge is at a foreign capital, but I will do my best to see that the answers are brought and certainly will do everything to help on the point.
DR. STAHMER: Whether I can forego this witness, I will be able to find out when I get the interrogatory back. Itmay be in regard to some questions he has given an insufficient answer.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes or Dahlerus?
DR. STAHMERS: With Forbes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the interrogatories will be submitted to you as soon as they are answered.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: And I think the same is true of Dahlerus. Interrogatories have been granted for him.
DR. STAHMERS: I have to say on the testimony of Dahlerus the following: The testimony of this witness seems to me so important that an interrogatory could not be sufficient to give all the information, and therefore I want to call the witness so that here he could be questioned and cross examined.
If this should not be possible, I ask for theopportunity to question him personally at Stockholm.
Dr. Siemers knows Dahlerus personally, and he would like to make a statement concerning this witness.
DR. SIEMERS (Counsel for the defendant Raeder): I know Mr. Dahlerus personally for many years. Dahlerus has written to me about the fact that Dr. Stahmer intends to call him as a witness. Mr. Dahlerus in principle, agrees to come to Nurnberg if she Court considers it necessary. As soon as the Tribunal agrees, Mr. Dahlerus as far as I can see from his letter, will certainly be prepared to come to Nurnberg. witnesses who, as for instance Mr. Dahlerus, could answer questions which are of far reaching historic importance, most probably not only one defendant's Counsel will want to ask questions, the Counsel for several defendants, and, therefore, an interrogatory which has been sent only by Dr. Stahmer, in my opinion, in such a case would not be sufficient. I ask, therefore, to admit the witness also from this point of view.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the position as to the witness Dahlerus is that Dr. Stahmer has put interrogatories consisting of 62 questions. I make no complaint of that at all. I only bring it to the notice of the Tribunal to show that Dr. Stahmer has certainly covered the ground.
In addition, if the Tribunal would turn for a moment to Dr. Stahmer's application for documents, they will see that Item 26 is Dahlerus' book -if the Tribunal will pardon my Swedish, "Sista Forsoket" "The Last Attempt." That is quite a lengthy book, dealing in detail with this point, and it is desired and the Tribunal has allowed that Dr. Stahmer will use it.
In addition, the position of Mr. Dahlerus has been the subject of interrogatories to Lord Halifax, who was then the British Foreign Minister and to Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, who was then Counsellor in Berlin, and on the main points of the matters, that Mr. Dahlerus had certain negotiations and paid certain visits, there is no dispute. interrogatories, the connected interrogatories to Lord Halifax, and Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, and the book, and the evidence of the defendant Goering himself, and it is unnecessary to investigate this matter further as to whether Mr. Dahlerus wishes to come and can come and should come from Sweden.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, may I ask you, have the Prosecution administered cross interrogatories to Dahlerus?
SIR DAVID-MAXWELL FYFE: No.
THE PRESIDENT: There was another question. Did the defendant Raider's counsel apply to have Dahlerus as a witness?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. The only other mention that I know of is by the defendant Ribbentrop's counsel on a limited point.
DR. HORN (Counsel for the defendant Von Ribbentrop): Before the Court makes a decision about the witness Dahlerus, I would like to say that I have asked for that witness for my client, Von Ribbentrop. The witness Dahlerus has in decisive hours before the outbreak of World War II in 1939, played an important role. The witness Dahlerus particularly can give information about the last document which contained the conditions for further negotiations with Poland, and he can make important statements. This document was the cause for the great world war. Dahlerus to come here, especially since Dr. Siemers has declared that he knows that the witness on his own initiative is ready and prepared to come here.
DR. STAHMER: May I, concerning the importance of this motion, may I still state this: I have sent an interrogatory with 62 questions; that is true, but I do not believe that these questions still include everything in the subject. It is impossible to put allthat into the interrogatory precisely what the witness knows and to bring it out in such a form that the Tribunal could have a complete picture of the important function which Dahlerus had at that time concerning Germany and England.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that point.
DR. STAHMER: As the next witness, I have requested. Baron von Hammerstein, who was a general in the Air Force, Judiciary and who is at this time either in an American or British captivity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Dr. Von Hammerstein, the Tribunal allowed interrogatories on the 9th of February, and Dr. Stahmer has nt yet submitted the interrogatories, and the witness is not yet located.
I have no objection to interrogatories. It seems as if this is essentially the type of witness that interrogatories would be most helpful with. He was the equivalent, as I understand it, of our Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, and interrogatories as to procedure, as foreshadowed in this application, would be a matter to which the Prosecution takes no objection at all. If he can be found, then Dr. Stahmer can administer the interrogatories as seen as he likes.
DR. STAHMER: As far as I could find out, I have not received any decision that an interrogatory should be sent, but I would like to ask to call Hammerstein as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Upon our documents, the right to administer interrogatories was granted 9 February.
DR. STAHMER: I can not find it at this moment, but I will check on it, Your Honor. for many years, and that is concerning the subject which for the judgment on the defendant and his attitude to the war and also to the treatment of the population in occupied territories and the prisoners of war is of the greatest importance, and here also it will be important that the witness should give to the Tribunal detailed information about these facts and describe them in a manner here which can not possibly be done in an interrogatory or in can answer to an interrogatory.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told, My Lord, that the interrogateries have been sent in and reached the Tribunal Secretariat a day or two ago. I don't want to add to my point.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir, I believe that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, the next one?
DR. STAHMER: The next witness is Baron von Brauohitsch, Colonel of the Air Force, the Luftwaffe, son of General Field Marshal von Brauchitse who is also here in the Nurnberg prison.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to Colonel von Brauchitsch.
DR. STAHMER: This witness shall give information about the position of the defendant with regard to the lynching of the terror fliers and his attitude toward enemy fliers in general. or British captivity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to General Kammhuber, interrogatorie were also allowed, on 9 February this year, and they have not been submitted, as far as my information goes, and again the witness has not been located. I have no objection to interrogatories, and when the interrogatories are received, probably Dr. Stahmer can decide whether it is necessary to call the witness. terms by Colonel Griffith-Jones, and therefore it seems to me the sort of subject that might well be investigated by interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think that some agreed statement could be put in about this?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If we could see the result of the interrogatories, we would certainly be willing to consider that because, as the Tribunal will no doubt remember, it was the plan showing the Luftwaffe commands in Warsaw and other districts outside Germany, and Colonel Griffith-Jones, in dealing with it, said that he was not stating positively that it had been placed before the defendant Goering, Therefore, if we have a statement, we should be most ready to consider it, and, if possible, agree on the point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: General of the Air Force Koller, in American captivity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution have not objection to General Koller. The Tribunal ordered on 26 January that he should be alerted. He has not yet been located, but if he is located, then clearly the matters suggested are relevant in the view of the Prosecution.
DR. STAHMER: Colonel General Student, in English captivity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution have no objection to this witness.
If Your Lordship will allow me one moment, I haven't had the chance to take this point up with my French colleague. As far as I know there is no objection. I would like to verify that.
I am grateful to Your Lordship. My French colleague, M. de Ribes, agrees that he has no objection.
DR. STAHMER: General Field Marshal Kesselring, who is in the Nurnberg prison at the present time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is on the same point, and the Prosecution takes the same attitude.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to hear some explanation from you, Dr. Stahmer, on what the evidence -- what is the relevance of Field Marshal Kesselring's evidence.
DR. STAHMER: The facts about which he knows I consider relevant because it was said by the Prosecution that Rotterdam had been bombed without military necessity, had been attacked without military necessity and that that attack was still under way at a time when negotiations had begun for the capitulation of the city.
THE PRESIDENT: You do not say where General Student is, but General Student and Field Marshal Kesselring are to give evidence, as I understand it, on exactly the same point, and therefore, if Field Marshal Kesselring were called as a witness, wouldn't it be sufficient to give interrogatories or get an affidavit from General Student?
DR. STAHMER: Yes; sir, I agree.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Agreed, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Dr. Ondarza, Chief Surgeon of the Luftwaffe, domicile unknown to me at the present time, but he has probably been discharged from captivity and may be at Hamburg now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next two witnesses are really on the same point. As I understood it, I thought that -- My copy is very bad, but I read it that the defendant was not informed of the experiments conducted by two doctors; the first one, I think, must be Rascher, and Dr. Romberg on inmates of Dachau and other places; that the defendanthimself never arranged for any experiments whatsoever on prisoners and Field Marshal Milch -- Paragraph A -is that the defendant was not informed of the letters exchanged between the witness and Wolffe concerning the experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher in Dachau, in which prisoners were employed, and that the witness did not even inform the defendant of this subject; that Dr. Rascher, on assuming his activity in Dachau, withdrew from the Luftwaffe and joined the SS as a surgeon. the witness being called.
It is the position with regard to the first witness, Dr. Ondarza, is that he is not located. The Tribunal ordered that he should be alerted on 26 January
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Fieldmarshal Milch is in the prison. Again I should have thought that in these circumstances we would make no objection to Fieldmarshal Milch being called on this point. If the surgeon Ondarza can be located, then I shall vote that interrogatories would be done, but I don't feel very -
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be agreeable to you, Dr. Stahmer, if we were to grant the application to call Fieldmarshal Milch on this point and were to allow interrogatories for the other witness who had been located?
DR. STAHMER: I have examined the question whether these two witnesses would have the same information. That is not the case. The subject concerning Milch is slightly different, and the defendant Goering considers it important to have Ondarza as a witness because Dr. Ondarza was for many years his physician and, therefore, is well informed, and, also, he is supposed to tell us that the defendant Goering did not know anything about the experiments which have been made with five hundred healthy people. I have not put that into my application, but I have just found out about that. There was a long protocol which was submitted by the Prosecution concerning five hundred brains. I have protested against that at the time and I was told that I should make this objection later at the appropriate time.
THE PRESIDENT: You can turn now to Koerner.
DR. STAHMER: State Secretary Paul Koerner, who is in the Nurnberg prison-
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, on our documents it is stated that the sugessted witness for Koerner is not located, but in the document of your application you say that he is in the Nurnberg prison.
DR. STAHMER: I have received that information, and at this moment I cannot say where I know if from.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I do not know, but I could easily find out for the Tribunal. I will ask if that can be checked.
THE PRESIDENT: If you would, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I have just been given a roster of internees on the 19th of February and he does not appear to be in that list.
THE PRESIDENT: In the Nurnberg prison?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the information that I had.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What about his evidence, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: Koerner was the Secretary of State and he can made statements about the purpose which was connected with the establishment of concentration camps in 1931, about the treatment of the people imprisoned there, and what Goering had to do with these things until 1934 while he was in charge, and the witness can also make statements about the measures and regulations, the purpose and the aim of the Four Year Plan, and also about the attitude of the defendant after he had been informed in November, 1938, about the atrocities against the Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that.
DR STAHMER: Dr. Lohse, art distorian, either in an English or an American camp.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My information, My Lord, Is that interrogatories war allowed on the 9th of February. They have not yet been submitted, and the witness is not yet located. I have no objection to interrogatories with regard to Dr.Lohse or the next witness, Dr.Dunjes, the deals with the save point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR STAHMER: Also, the testimony of the witness Lohse seems to be important, consider the weight of the accusation which have been made against the defendant, and it seams to no be so important that I ask again to save him as witness here he are this Tribunal. The question is a very short one. We shall state own the defendant went about acquiring art objects in the occupied territories. That is very short Subject but, for the judgment of the defendant, it is very important; and Since the prosecution has made that accesation, this is a very heavy one.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the witness?
DR STAHMER: Lohse, sir.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please use Tribunal; the interrogatories apparently seemed a suitable method to the Tribunal, and the prosecution respect ally submits that e could sea that Dr. Lohse can say in answer to the interrogatories, and then Dr. Stahmer can, if necessary renew his application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes Is there anything you want to say about Dr Dunjes?
DR. STAHMER: The last witness is Dr. Dunjes, also an art historian.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, Dr. Dunjes is in exactly the same position as Dr. Lohse, and I do not thing I need reseat What I said.
THE PRESIDENT: Expect that he may be located. I do not know where he is.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I think this is the first reference to Dr. Dunjes, and therefore we have not been able to find out whether he can be located or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Perhaps Dr Stahmer knows.
DR. STAHMER: I am told just now that Dr. Lohse is in the camp of Hersbrwek.
THE PRESIDENT: Where did you say he was?
DR. STAHMER: In the camp of Hersbruck. That is not far from Nurnberg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I shall make inquiries about him.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dunjes, do you know where he can be located?
DR. STAHMER: No sir. He lived at Frier, but whether he is there now I could not say.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, that concludes your witnesses. Does it not?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: These are all that you are applying for?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: As far as you know, is that your final list?
DR. STAHMER: I cannot say now. I cannot see it clearly now how far the prosecution, which has not finished, will make it necessary for me to make further applications for witnesses or documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we discuss the documents the Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken)
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we can deal with the documents more as a whole. Have you anything to say about them?
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I ask one question?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes .
DR. STAHMER: Considering the two witnesses, Coller and Koerner, I was told before that Coller was Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and Koerner, Undersecretary of State. Both were repeatedly questioned by the occupying forces of the occupying powers and that may make it easier to locate the witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will note that point and, of course we will do our best to help in locating them.
THE PRESIDENT: Which two witnesses are those?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL -FYFE: Coller and Koerner. They are both witnesses to whom I made no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be convenient, if the Tribunal please if I were to explain the general position of the prosecution with regard to the documents, and then Dr Stahmer could deal with these points because they fall within certain groups which I can indicate quite shortly.
There are three documents which are not in evidence, but to which there is no objection.
No. 19. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement. That is a treaty, of course, and the Court can take judicial cognizance of it. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. 25. The Constitution of the German Reich (Weimar Constitution ) of 11 August 1919. Again I shall assume the Court will take jedicial cognizance of it. THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. 30. Hitler's Speech of 21 May 1035. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then there are a number which are already in evidence as far as I know. No. 4. The Rhine Pact of Locarno. No. 5. The Memorandum to the Locarno Powers of the 25th of May 1935. No. 6. Memorandum to the Locarno Powers of the 7th of March 1936. No. 9. The Treaty of Versailles. No. 17. The Speech by the Defendant von Neurath of 16 October 1935. No. 18. The Proclamation by the Reich Government of the 16th of March 1935. And then No. 7 was referred to but not read. That is the Speech by Ribbentrop before the League of Nations on the 19th of March 1936. All these are in or have been referred to and, therefore, there is no objection as far as they are concerned. Then we come to a series of books. Dr. Stahmer has at the moment referred to the three groups of books. No. l. The late Lord Rothermere's book, "Warnings and Prophecies." No. 2. The late Sir Nevilo Henderson's "Failure of a Mission." No. 3. The references to a number of editions of the "Dokumente Der Deutschen Politik." THE PRESIDENT: Those appear to be repeated, do they not, in the ones that follow or some of them? Six and seven, for instance, are taken from those volumes of the "Deutschen Politik." SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, apparently they are, My Lord. If I might just give Your Lordship the others so that you have the group together.
No. 8. Mr. Fay's book on the "Origin of the World War." No. 20. Mr. Winston Churchill's book "Step by Step." No. 24. The Defendant Goering's book "Building up a Nation." No. 26, which I have already referred to, is Mr. Dahlerus' book, "The Last Attempt." With regard to these, there are two points: First of all, it is mechanically impossible to translate the whole of these books into Russian and French. I think most of them are in English already; secondly, the relevancy of the book can't be decided until we see the extract which Dr. Stahmer is going to use. So the Prosecution submits that Dr. Stahmer should at the earliest opportunity let us know what are the extracts on which he relics so that they can be translated and we can decide as to whether they are relevant or not. Now the fourth category of books or documents, where either the issue is not clear or in as far as it is clear, it is obviously irrelevant. One to which I have already referred comes into this: No. 8. "The Origin of the world War." No. 10. Speech by President Wilson of 8 January 1918. That is the "FourteenPoint Speech." No. 11. The Note of President Wilson of 5 November 1918. That is the "Armistice Note." No. 12. A Speech by Monsieur Paul Boncour of 8 April 1927. No. 13. A Speech by General Bliss in Philadelphia, which is before 1921, because it is quoted in "What Really Happened at Paris," published in 1921. No. 14. A Speech by the late Lord Lloyd George of 7 November 1927. No. 15. An Article by Lord Cecil on the lst of March 1924, and another on the 18th of November 1926. No. 16. Lord Lloyd George's Memorandum for the Peace Conference of 25 March 1919. May I pause there. As far as the Prosecution can judge, the only relevancy of these books and documents is as to the issue of whether the Treaty of Versailles accorded with the Fourteen Points of President Wilson. The Prosecution submits that that is closely removed from the issues of this trial and is just one of the matters against which the Charter proceeds and which should not be gone into by this Court.