DR. SEIDL: I hereby make the application.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you want to make it now?
DR. SEIDL: If it is possible I should like to make the application now. I am, of course, perfectly prepared to submit that application in writing later.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will hear you new, then, upon this application, and you can put the application in writing afterwards as a matter of record.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: What is his name?
DR. SEIDL: Alfred Hess. His last official position was Deputy Gauleiter of the Foreign Organization of the NSDAP. At the tire being he is in Mergentheim, in the internment camp there.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes? For what purpose? You said because he was going to speak as to fifth column activities, was that it?
DR. SEIDL: Regarding the fifth column and regarding the question of whether or not the foreign organization of the NSDAP was related to Der Volksbund der Deutschen im Ausland and Der Bund Deutscher im Osten, and was so related in a way to carry out fifth column activities.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David?
SIR DAVID-MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have already conceded that this is a relevant issue, and therefore the only question is cumulation. The defendant Hess will himself be able to speak on this point, and the witness further if the Tribunal allows it. or interrogatories from a third witness on the point would be sufficient at the moment, unless any further issue is disclosed, in which case Dr. Seidl could summon the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, you can pass on to your documents.
DR. SEIDL: Very well. It is my intention for individual documents in Rudolf Hess's document book, to read various passages in order to establish the connection. A further justification of the relevance of these documents is superfluous, since the question of documents submitted by the prosecution-they have already been accepted in evidence by the Court.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the application is in this form. .
"I intend to read pages from the following books: Rudolf Hess' Speeches; Directives by the Deputy of the Fuehrer. The relevancy of these documents can be inferred simply from the fact that both have already been introduced in evidence by the prosecution." of course Dr. Seidl may, within the usual limits, comment on them as much as he likes. If he intends to put in other speeches and directive, documents of the same class, then the prosecution asks that he indicate which speeches and which directives he is going to out in.
DR. SEIDL: What Sir David. Maxwell-Fyfe read was the outline of my application. It is true that from the book of Rudolf Hess' speeches I intend to read certain passages, and further, from the book Orders of the Deputy of the Fuehrer. The prosecution has already submitted both these books in evidence, and the Court has accepted them. most certaily relevant, Whether those passages that I intend to read are relevant or not can only be decided after I submit these documents. that it is only possible to decide on the relevancy of a document when one has that document before one and knows its precise contents.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I hole Dr. Seidl will realize that this is largely a matter of mechanics. If he is going to introduce new speeches and new directives, they have got to be translated into English, Russian, and French; and therefore it will be necessary, for the general progress of the trial, that he should indicated which, passages he is going to put in so that they can be translated as well as considered.
I am sure that Dr. Seidl will only desire to use relevant passages. Naturally, every politician makes many speeches on many subjects, and some of Hess' speeches may well not be relevant.
I suggest that it is not unreasonable; we are only trying to help along the general progress of the trial by the request that I have made.
DR. SEIDL: Of course, Mr. President, I shall read only those passages, and few of them at that, which are relevant. It never entered my mind to read whole sections of the book if it is not necessary. counsel for Hess nor for Frank shall I submit one single document that could not be recognized as relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what Car David was saying was that for the mechanics of the trial, owing to the unfortunate fact that we don't all understand German, it is necessary that these documents which are in German should be translated. There fore, it is necessary for you to specify which speech and which part of the speech you propose to rely upon, and then it will be translated.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I shall incorporate every single passage that I intend to read in a document book, and every passage from a speech that I intend to read will be submitted to the Court, in proper time, in a document book. to take up the work which, of course, I shall attend to.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Mr Lord , that is quite all right. That is exactly the point that I was seeking to make.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, they Now you are coming to paragraph 3.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. Thirdly, I shall read passages from the report of the conference between Lord Byron and Hess, which took place in 1941. I shall attempt to prove in this the motives and aims which moved the defendant Hess to his flight to England. submitted a report of this conference with Sir Kilpatrick.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidly thinks that that conversation adds anything to the conversations with the Duke of Hamilton and Mr. Kilpatrick, I shall not object to him reading the report.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the document?
DR. SEIDL: It is in my hands.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the nature of the document? I mean, what authenticity has it? Whoe made it? Who wrote it?
DR. SEIDL: The document was found among the papers of the defendant Hess, and were given to him when he was brought from England back to Germany. It is a carbon copy, certified by an official stamp; it is certified as the carbon copy of an original.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the document.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: If you will let us have the document, we will consider it.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is a letter, isn't there? There are two other documents referred to, but you are not asking us for those? A document of a letter to Hitler on the Reich Cabinet dated 10 May 1941.
DR. SEIDL: This application apparently was made by my predecessor. I should like to have an opportunity of examining the relevancy of this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything, Sir David, about them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:We haven't got that document. The Prosecution have not got the letter that the Defendant Hess sent to Hitler, and we just simply can not help on that point.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. If that document can be located, it shall be submitted to you.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn.
DR. HORN (Counsel for defendant Ribbentrop): It is my intention to call as the first witness for the defendant Ribbentrop the Ambassador Friedrich Gaus, at present in a camp at minder near Hannover. the German Foreign Office, and in this capacity, it is to be seen, how necessary this witness is.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Horn would carry out the same procedure as Dr. Stahmer and pause for a moment when he has introduced the witness, I shall then be able to indicate in the same way whether there is any objection.
DR. HORN: Certainly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As far as Herr Gaus is concerned, there is no objection, subject to one point on what I may call the Foreign Office, group of witness, and I think it will be convenient if I develop it now, and then Dr. Horn would deal with the point in one moment.
Dr. Horn is asking for Herr Gaus, Miss Blank, who is the defendant's private secretary, and then witnesses three to seven, five foreign office officials Sonnleitner, Rintelen, Gottfriedsen, Hilger and Bruns.
Miss Blank was allowed or not by the Tribunal, and two of the witnesses, von Sonnleitner and von Rintelen were granted on 5 December. Von Sonnleitner was granted as one of two and Herr Bruns was granted simpliciter. special facts are stated as to which these witness will speak, and at the present moment, the applications are not within the Rule of Procedure 4 (a), but what the Prosecution suggest is this: who will speak as to Foreign Office business and activities, but they suggest that if he has Herr Gaus and his private secretary, Miss Blank, that one other Foreign Office official to speak as to the general methode would be sufficient, and Sonnleitner is obviously the sort of person who could help the defendant on General foreign Office matters. They suggest that to call seven witnesses to deal with his general position in the business would be unduly cumulative, and they suggest that three is sufficient. but really my point involves the number of them.
DR. HORN: May I reply to that: Dr. Gaus in all probability, will be my main witness. Therefore, since 10 November 1945, we have done everything to find this witness and after that had been accomplished, to bring him here. The witness is not personally here, and I consequently am not in possession of the knowledge of precisely what he will testify. For this reason I would also like not to commit myself as to the other witnesses from the Foreign Office.
I should like to make this application. The other witnesses whom I have listed here are not such as will give testimony on routine matters or, as Sir David said, on general matters regarding the Foreign Office. Rather, they are witnesses who can give testimony on very specific points which were brought up by this Prosecution.
I vonsequently suggest that, as to the calling of these other witnesses, a decision should be reached only after Ambassador Gaus is here.
In connection with this, I should like to ask the Court again personally to assist me in the calling of this extraordinarily important witness because only if I have him here in a short time can I submit my evidence in writing to the General Secretary in time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, we will consider that. That deals with one to seven, does it not?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I should like to remark that the witness listed under number two I should like to be omitted. Consequently, not two to seven, but three to seven.
Fraulein Blank has made the following statement. For many years she was secretary of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, von Ribbentrop, since 1933. The witness Blank drew up a large number of definitively important sketches and plans and also was in touch with Ribbentrop at decisive moments and spoke to him about these things. I should like to call-
THE PRESIDENT: Then you are asking, are you, that Ambassador Gaus and Fraulein Blank should be brought here as soon as possible that the consideration of the other witness, three to seven, should be deferred until yon have had an opportunity of seeing Gaus and Blank?
DR. HORN: Yes. As regards Fraulein Blank, I say that she is in an internment camp near Nurnberg, Hersbruck.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that she is so near that you could see her yourself there?
DR. HORN: I did not understand; I'm sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you mean that Fraulein Blank is in a camp so near Nurnberg that you could go and visit her and speak to her there?
DR. HORN: Yes, I do have that possibility. May I interpret this as authorization to visit Fraulein Blank in order to interrogate her?
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that this is your application, and we will consider it.
DR. HORN: Thank you. adjutant to Hitler, at the time being in the Nurnberg prison.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to this witness, the application says that there was a decisive conference between Hitler and the defendant von Ribbentrop, and that he can speak as to certain things that occurred. If that is so, if he can speak as one attending the conference, the Prosecution have no objection. nesses -- to what I call self created evidence. That is if a witness is merely coming to say that the defendant said that he had certain views, that, in the submission of the Prosecution, does not carry the thing any further. If I understand, this witness is speaking as an observer of the conference, and, as such, we take no objection.
DR. HORN: I should like to give Sir David my assurance that this is a witness who has immediate, first-hand knowledge of these decisive events and can give such testimony. eign Office, now in Nurnberg in the numicipal prison.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal would be good enough to look at the seventh line from the foot if this application, it says that Steengracht will further testify that, contrary to the assertions of the Chief Prosecutor of the United States, the protests of the churches and of the Vatican were always processed, thus obviating even worse excesses. defendant Ribbentrop sent forward the protests of the churches to Hitler, then the Prosecution would feel that they ought not to object to the witness.
DR. HORN: I can say in regard to this, Mr. President, that these protests were submitted not only to Hitler, but that furthermore, and on the initiative and order of the defendant, those officers involved in those crimes were reprimanded.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Can we go on to Ten?
DR. HORN: My witness is Dahlerus. The submission of him was discussed at length, and I should like to know whether further discussion of the relevan of submitting this witness is necessary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have already put my general position with regard to Dahlerus. Apparently this defendant wants him on one particular point namely, an order from Hitler, and I submit that the appropriate way would be in Dr. Horn added an interrogatory on that point. vate order to a Swedish engineer, but in view of the fact that interrogatories have been ordered, I suggest that Dr. Horn can send a further interrogatory on that point.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I remark in this connection that it is not a question here of a command of Hitler, but a question of the decisive note that was the beginning of the second world war.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: My position goes into a great deal of these requests. This is only evidence if Herr Dahlerus can say what Hitler said, what Hitler told him. It isn't evidence if Herr Dahlerus can say, "Herr Ribbentrop told me that Hitler had so ordered." That does not add to the evidence of the defendant himself. Therefore, I think it is essential that before one can judge of the evidential value at all, that the matter should be submitted, as I suggest, by way of interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, unless you have anything further to add with reference to this witness, we will stop at this point, because we think it is impossible to go further today, and apparently it is impossible to finish the whole of your applications this afternoon, so do you wish to add anything more about Dehlerus?
DR. HORN: Yes, I should like to make a short statement in answer to what Sir David says is evidential. This witness will not say what he heard from Ribbentrop; he will testify to what he heard about Ribbentrop from the decisive personality, namely, Hitler himself.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: A general point, My Lord: In the case of the witnesses who are asked for by Dr. Horn, I had prepared the comments of the Prosecution, and they have been typed out in English. The Tribunal will realize that we only received this application yesterday, and it had to be translated. I haven't been able to get it translated, but I have given Dr. Horn a copy quite informally so that he would be informed, and it might be useful if I handed it in because it might shorten the proceedings and also act as a record when the Tribunal resumes the consideration.
of these points. I do not know if that appeals to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Then we will adjourn now. to the Soviet Prosecutors that we should continue on Monday morning with this examination of witnesses and evidence. I think it will probably take the whole of the morning if we deal with the defendant Ribbentrop's applications and then the defendant Keitel's, so that the Soviet Prosecution, if that course were adopted, would come on at two o'clock. Would that be convenient for them?
GENERAL RUDENKO: It will be quite convenient for us as well.
THE PRESIDENT: There is just one other point I should like to ask you. I think the Tribunal were notified that there were two witnesses the Soviet proposed to call. I think that we said that General Warlimont and I think General Haldar ought to be called so as to give the Defense Counsel an opportunity of cross examining them.
GENERAL RUDENKI: If it will be convenient for the President, I shall report on this question. I became acquainted with the transcript about the time when General Pokrovsky and General Smirnov were doing the presentation. General Warlimont and Haldar, who were cross examined in the Court by the Defense Counsel, but the Soviet Prosecution is not going to admit those people as witnesses on behalf of the Soviet Prosecution. Prosecution has in mind in regard to concluding its presentation of evidence. We have a plan to present to the Tribunal the last section, and that is Crimes against Humanity. The presentation of this question will take approximately three to four hours. Soviet citizens who are specially brought into Nurnberg and who are in Nurnberg now. In such a way we consider that we shall, if we start our presentation beginning at two o'clock, then on Tuesday we will finish our presentation on all counts.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will expect to have General Warlimont and Halder present here before the Soviet case finishes, not for the Soviet Prosecution to ask them questions but for them to be cross-examined by the defense counsel if they want to, but that may take place at any time that is convenient to you.
If you wish, they could be called at two o'clock on Monday; if you prefer, at the end of the Soviet presentation, either on Tuesday afternoon or on Wednesday morning, whichever is convenient to you.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, was I already mentioned, the Soviet Prosecution did not propose to call either Halder or Warlimont. The Soviet Prosecution did not object if the defense counsel proposes to cross-examine Halder and Warlimont. As far as I know, as far back as last December the Tribunal granted the defense application to call Halder as a witness on behalf of the defense. Wherefore it seems to me, and in order to expedite the presentation of the Soviet evidence, this really will not effect the presentation, that I wish the examination of Warlimont and Halder were done during the presentation of evidence on the part of the defense counsel.
One moment, if I may. Inasmuch as I know that in the application on behalf of the defendant Keitel, which was presented to the Tribunal, Halder and Warlimont are indicated as witnesses, and the defendant Keitel and his attorney were making a motion to call them as witnesses; on the basis of this, I consider that the examination of this witness should be done during the presentation of evidence by the defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that both General Warlimont and General Halder are here in Nurnberg. Is that so?
GENERAL RUDENKO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Probably the most convenient course would be for the Tribunal to see exactly what order the Tribunal made with reference to their being called. We will look up the shorthand notes and see exactly what order we made and deal with the matter on Monday morning. Then, in the meantime, on Monday morning we will continue, as you said is convenient to you, the applications by Dr. Horn for the defendant Ribbentrop and the applications by Dr. Nelte on behalf of the defendant Keitel, and we shall sit from We until four o'clock only on Monday afternoon.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 25 February 1916, at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you dealt with Dahlerus last, I believe.
DR. HORN (Counsel for defendant Ribbentrop): That is right, Mr. President. who was military attache at Moscow. I ask he be called to Nurnberg. In this case I am also willing to forego the personal appearance of the witness if an interrogatory will be permitted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we object to this witness and so Dr. Horn can develop it as far as he desires.
THE PRESIDENT: You object to him?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: WE object.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. HORN: I wish to ask the Tribunal in this case that the witness be called. witness might be called by the Prosecution. This has not been done. part in the German-Russian negotiations from August to September 1939, at Moscow and from the beginning of hostilities against the Soviet Union he remained there In line of duty. The witness, therefore, is in a position to tell us about the attitude of important German personalities Involved in the Russian-German pact and for these reasons, I ask the Tribunal to call the witness.
GENERAL RUDENKO: As has been stated by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Prosecution objects to the calling of this witness. I would like to state further the position of the Prosecution in this case.
The witness took part in negotiations in 1939. The Tribunal is not so much interested in the fact of these negotiations as in their violation, and I believe if we call this witness it will only serve to lengthen the proceedings.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I am sorry, I do not understand the reasoning of the General.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you repeat, General?
GENERAL RUDENKO: All right. To what Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe has already stated, objecting on behalf of the Prosecution, I wish to add, the calling of this witness because he took part in the negotiations in 1939 is quite unnecessary as the Tribunal is not interested in the fact of these negotiations. It is interested far more in the violation of this Treaty and therefore, the calling of this witness -
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
GENERAL RUDENKO: May I continue, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Therefore, I consider that the calling of this witness to this Court is unnecessary, as this witness has nothing to do with the case before us.
DR. HORN: I ask the Tribunal to permit me to state that General Koestring for weeks was in the prison in Nurnberg at the disposal of the Prosecution. Therefore, I ask the Tribunal to permit me also to use him as a witness, for the reasons which I have mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.
Dr. Horn, the Tribunal does not understand the fact that General Koestring is in prison at Nurnberg is any answer to the objection which is made on behalf of the Prosecution, namely, that the Tribunal is not interested in negotiations which took place in September 1939 but in the violation of the Treaty. The Tribunal would like to know whether you have any answer to make to that objection? The only answer you have made up to date is that General Koestring is here in Nurnberg.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, General Koestring shall testify that the pact with the Soviet Union on the part of Germany and on the part of my client was made with the intention of its being kept.
Court to call the witness on the basis of this reason.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider your request.
DR. HORN: The next witness is Legation Secretary Dr. Hesse, who was formerly in the Foreign Office in Berlin and now probably in the camp at Augsburg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is no objection to this witness. I do not know if Dr. Horn wants him in person or if an affidavit would do. The Prosecution do not feel strongly on the matter but they ask Dr. Horn whenever possible to accept an affidavit and they suggest that he might consider it in this case.
DR. HORN: In this case I will be satisfied with an affidavit. now probably in Allied custody in the American zone or possibly even freed from custody.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection in this case. Apparently this witness will speak as to an interview which is already in evidence before the Court and will give a different account of it. Prosecution makes no objection under the circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that.
DR. HORN: Thank you, Mr. President. International Red Cross in Geneva and formerly League of Nations Commissar at Danzig.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Burckhardt is obviously in a very special position as President of the International Red Cross. He is a person to whom all belligerents, irrespective of country, are indebted and the point that the Prosecution make is that if he can speak to evidence coming from Hitler himself, that is if he can prove by saying that he was informed by Hitler that the defendant Ribbentrop had interceded or if he can say he saw letters received by Hitler from Ribbentrop, the Prosecution would have no objection.
Prosecution would object. should make an affidavit as to his means of knowledge and if that is done and if the means of knowledge are satisfactory, I should not think for a moment that the Prosecution would do anything but accept the evidence of Dr. Burckhardt.
The second point, we submit, is irrelevant; the question of the results of the English promises of guarantee to Poland on the position in Danzig.
DR. HORN: Aside from the reasons which I have mentioned, I can also say that Professor Burckhardt in 1943 had met in Berlin with Ribbentrop and Hitler and therefore could make detailed statements and could give detailed information as to the reasons which I have mentioned for calling him I also agree, however, that Professor Burckhardt's appearance would not be necessary if an interrogatory could be obtained.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will consider that.
DR. HORN: The next witness is the Swiss Ambassador, Feldscher, who was last Ambassador at Berlin.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggest, My Lord, that he comes into the same position as Dr. Burckhardt. He should be dealt with in the same way.
DR. HORN: I agree, Mr. President. Winston Churchill.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it plwase the Tribunal, the Prosecution objects to this application and with the greatest respect to Dr. Horn, submit that there are no relevant reasons disclosed in the application now before the Tribunal. The first part of it is apparently an account of a conversation which does not touch the facts of this case and the second part is also a discussion of a conversation which apparently was some years before the war, between the German Ambassador and a gentleman, who at that time was in no official position in England. But what relevancy the conversation has to any of the issues in this case the Prosecution respectfully submits is not only non-apparent but non-existent.
DR. HORN: Against this statement of Sir David, I want to say first the following: Opposition of His British Majesty in Parliament. In this position we may consider him somewhat of an official. In addition to that, as leader of the Opposition he was even paid by the government.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure that Dr. Horn would be the last person to rely on a point on which he has been misinformed.
Mr. Churchill was not leader of His Majesty's Opposition at any period and was certainly not from 1936 to 1938, when the defendant Ribbentrop was ambassador. Mr. Attlee was then leader of the Opposition. Mr. Churchill was not in office; was a backbench member of the Conservative Party, independent member of the Conservative Party at that time.
DR. HORN: At any rate, Mr. President, Mr. Churchill was one of the best-known statesmen of England in Germany. This statement that Churchill had made at the time of his visit to the Embassy was immediately relayed by Ribbentrop and reported to Hitler. There is a high degree of probability that it is one of the reasons for Hitler making his surprising statement in the Hoszbach document, which has been submitted as PS-368. It was a surprise to everybody concerned and was in the first submission of proof by the Prosecution of a hint of conspiracy in the sense of the Indictment.
mentioned that after the seizure of Czechoslovakia by Germany, people in England and Poland, got very concerned. Therefore negotiations between England and Poland started and a pact of guarantee was reached. statements, whereby England intended to build up a coalition against Germany, Hitler to counteract this with all his means, became concerned about his own armament situation. Hitler became concerned in a higher degree to increase his own armaments and to consider Strategic plans.
For these reasons I consider Churchill's statements extraordinarily important and therefore I ask this witness be called.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have stated my point. My Lord, I do not think I can add to it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal wouldlike to have Dr. Horn's observations, which they have only heard through the microphone, in writing on this subject
DR. HORN: As the next witnesses I name Lord Londonderry, Lord Kemsley, Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Vansittart. These witnesses have already received interrogatories.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: These witnesses are being dealt with by interrogatories and we make no objection to the interrogatories.
DR. HORN: As the next witness I would like to call Admiral Schuster, last address Kiel.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We object to the calling of Admiral Schuster. Grounds for his being asked for are that he took part in the negotiations which led to the German-English Naval Treaty of 1935. Apparently the point that is desired to be made is that the treaty was concluded on this defendant's initiative.
The Prosecution submit that that point is irrelevant; that the negotiations before the treaty are irrelevant, and the treaty is there for the Tribunal to take judicial notice of and from which my friend can found any argument which he desires.
anterior to old standing treaties would be an intol erable waste of time when there are so many vital issues before the Tribunal.
DR. HORN: We are discussing during this trial the problem of planning and preparations. In this connection it is/certainly not unimportant to hear evidence as to what the German Government and especially Ribbentrop had planned and prepared at that time. to the agreement, is of further importance than just the conclusion of that naval treaty. The treaty was considered by von Ribbentrop, and Admiral Schuster can bear witness to the fact, was considered by him the first cornerstone in a close treaty between England and Germany. To prove these intentions clearly to the Tribunal and thereby to explain the policy of the defendant von Ribbentrop, which he pursued at that time, I consider this witness important and essential and I ask Sir David to modify his position.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I cannot. My colleagues and I have considered this matter very carefully and I have put our general position as to pre-treaty negotiations, especially as to treaties of long standing and with the greatest desire to be reasonable to help Dr. Horn, I am very sorry I cannot at this point accede to his request.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, may I speak? following :
Dr. Horn has requested us to justify our objection. I believe that one of the main divergencies between Prosecution and Defense is the following: defendants intended the signing of friendly alliances. Our starting point is that the defendants wished to violate these agreements and that is why it is quite unnecessary to call witnesses who will prove that the defendants strove to sign peaceful agreements, and as you very well know, the violations of the treaties and of their intentions to violate these treaties.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, in order to test the relevancy of this class of evidence, I should like to ask this question. not wish that Germany should make war on England. What relevancy would that have to the allegation that Germany was planning to make war upon Poland?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, to answer that question and to answer it decisively in the sense of the entire defense, I would have to point out all the political and diplomatic relations at the time before the Second World War. I had a chance to examine my entire material and could reach one, definite opinion. and documents and I have understood what we are only to present reasons for calling the witnesses, and that will be confirmed when they are heard. before I haveexamined all the proof and then I could come to an opinion as to the basic line of my defense.