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.
moment.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a material question to consider in considering what evidence is relevant. But as you do not wish to commit yourself upon the point, you can proceed.
DR. HORN: The next witness is Ambassador Dr. Paul Schmidt, interpreter at the Foreign Office in Berlin, at this time probably at Oberuersel camp.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the next two witnesses, who are grouped together in the application, they are desired to give evidence of the fact that this defendant asked Hitler five or six times for permission to resign. Again I make the point, which I have made several times to the Tribunal, that if these witnesses can give evidence from the Hitler side of these offers, then there would be no objection. that he had offered to resign, that does not, in the submission of the Prosecution, take it any further. But it may well be that there are letters which went to Hitler which these gentlemen saw and if that is the purpose of their evidence, than the Prosecution feel that it might be relevant, certainly on the question of sentence, if not, though they would reserve all rights to say whether it was a question of guilt of innocence in view of the provisions of the Charter. gentlemen to make affidavits of their means of knowledge and that would deal with the point which I have put to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you suggest a preliminary affidavit rather than interrogatories? Would not interrogatories be wiser?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would agree, My Lord, interrogatories which would cover that Point of means of knowledge would be the best thing. making two bites at the cherry, if I may use a colloquialism.
DR. HORN: We can talk about the next two witnesses at the same time and I can say that Sir David will give the same reasons against them as he did with the other English witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought, my Lord, that my friend and I could agree that they stand or fall with the Tribunal's decision on Admiral Schuster.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, they are the same.
DR. HORN: Then, I would like to forego the calling of these two witnesses, provided the Court will permit me to call Admiral Schuster. Office, Doernberg, at this time most probably interned at Augsburg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again, with great respect, Herr Doernberg's views on the veracity of Count Ciano, in my submission, are not relevant. If we get into calling witnesses to express their views as to the veracity of or other characteristics of the statesmen of Europe, the Tribunal would embark on a course that might well take a very long time and would not lead to any great results and I respectfully submit that this is not a class of testimony or a ground of testimony which the Tribunal should entertain.
DR. HORN: To this point I can say that Count Ciano, through his diary is available to us now, at least on important points, and with regard to the proof which Dr. Doernberg is ready to give us and which we will present to the Court. of an Order. The Russian Prosecution has said against Ribbentrop that he has sold Siebenbuergen for a high Rumanian Order. I would like to either question Mr. Doernberg here about this point or in the form of on affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: As next witness I name Ambassador Schnurre, who was the chief of the trade political department of the foreign office. I do not know where he is right now. Probably he is a prisoner of the Allies in the British zone.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With great respect, My Lords, the Prosecution again say that there is no need for a witness to be called to give information that his political chief intended to keep the treaty that he signed. The very grounds that are given for the application seem to me to show that this is really a matter of comment and argument, and we submit that a witness on this point is both irrelevant and unnecessary.
DR. HORN: I ask the Tribunal to permit me to call this witness for the following reasons: The fact alone that the witness was informed about the intentions of his chief is not so important for me, but the fact that, on the basis of participation at the negotiations, treaty negotiations, he was also in contant with other important persons, and, therefore, is informed about the background of this treaty, and thereby he can speak about 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 they 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, it is in determining a criminal fact that is important to determine the question of guilt. To what extent did the Defendant Ribbentrop try to keep the treaty as a human being? And it is a different question how far, by political necessity and other forces, he may have been compelled to witness how a treaty was not kept in the sense in which it was meant originally.
THE PRESIDENT: You can pass on
DR. HORN: Ambassador Ritter of the foreign office. He was liaison man with the OKW -- High Command of the Wehrmacht; at this time probably at 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 point 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 agreement 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.
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: I just stated the reason why I want to call this witness. The witness will tell us that Ribbentrop was against the treatment of terror fliers, from the fact that Germany left the Convention without notifying the powers which were interested.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He says he wants to call Ambassador Ritter to contradict the two documents prepared by him, 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 called, or if he gives 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 to the Prosecution to decide.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: The next witness is the former German Ambassador in Oslo, Norway, von Grundherr, probably at this time 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 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 reduce my statement to the fact that I want to call them in order to get information that Ribbentrop, from 1933 to 1939, was seriously concerned about amelioration of relations with France. First of all, the witness M. Daladier, former Prime Minister of France, can testify about these designs. If the Court should decide that these witnesses, or some of these witnesses, could make their statements in the form of affidavits, I will present questions which have to do with the accusation against my client.
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. 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. De Polignac, and Count and Countess Jean de Castellan, 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 will prove just the fact that the interests of Ribbentrop, considering better relations with France went further than could be seen by remarks which normally would not be considered to be any more than international courtesy. For this reason, I ask to permit me to call one or the other of the witnesses of this group.
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 to prove through these witnesses that it was at least not in the intentions of the Defendant von Ribbentrop to plan wars and prepare wars., but that for decades he has tried to improve relations with the neighboring states around Germany.
The Prosecution, Mr. President, accuses my client also of having planned aggressive war against England and France. If the Prosecution foregoes this point, I, of course, can forego the calling of these witnesses,
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will consider three.
DR. HORN: The next witness is or. Ernest Tennant, of London.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 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. 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 a 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. 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. or shortly before that time the Defendant asked a gentleman of no official position whether he could introduce him to the three gentleman 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 principal question.
By the Prosecution the question is always raised: What can this witness tell us about the fact that Germany has or not not started or caused a war against Poland, while the witness comes from an entirely different country and has nothing to do with Poland, or Polish conditions? Poland by Germany can only be understood in the framework of the entire European politics. Therefore, the Defense has called for witnesses whom the Prosecution would like to exclude because they can tell about the big picture, and they can give individual cornerstones for the entire framework. Therefore, I also ask for Professor Cornell-Evans of London.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 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:
regard to Professor Conwell-Evans was said in court by Professor ConwellEvans, 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 to the Tribunal as to his intentions and as to his own 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.
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 fails 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 twenty 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 under No. 5, Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you giving up 38? You didn't deal with 37 You are passing that over, are you?
DR. HORN: I believe that I would hear the same reasons against we as concerning the other witnesses. Therefore, since I believe that the Count is going to decide in principle about the question whether all the background should be submitted by these statements of witnesses, that the court will make decision about that.
Therefore, I have left out the name of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to go back to No. 5?
DR. HORN: I would like to come back to No. Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen had the entire official and private handling of finances of the Defendant von Ribbentrop for many years. acquired objects of art and similar things. About this point, Counsellor of Legation Gottfriedsen can make the same decisive statements which will show that these accusations are false. I therefore ask for permission to call this witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have just asked Dr. Horn on this point whether he would prefer Herr Gottfriedsen to 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 certain 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, in the case of the witness Gottfriedsen.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: My statement regarding the calling of witnesses is thereby finished.
DR. STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering): I have not named some witnesses whom have been called by other Defendants' Counsel, and among these is also Dr. Paul Schmidt. I had the greatest interest to question this witness. Schmidt was the interpreter of Goering; he was present at almost all political negotiations with foreign statesmen. Therefore, I ask aloe to call this witness and support thereby the application made by Dr. Herr.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that, Dr. Stahmer. We will around now for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken) DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I please bring one other point to the attention of the Tribunal?
It has to do with the calling of witnesses. conspiracy in general began, and when my client might have taken part in this conspiracy. The prosecution did hot concern itself very exactly with the time at which the conspiracy began, it simply said that it took place some time before the 8th of May, 1944. assume that the defendant Ribbentrop, before 1939, was not party to the conspiracy. point is considered as to whether witnesses are relevant.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be helpful, if I indicated quite generally what Dr. Horn has to meet. 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, and friendly, the United States and Japan. All these matters are set out with the supporting documents, and a reference to them will chow exactly what is alleged against the defendant on that point. specially raised. international law and the conventions should be taken against allied aviators. Again, the supporting documents are in evidence.
Secondly, there is General Lahousen's evidence as to what the defendant said with regard to the treatment of the population of Poland.
Thirdly, 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.