so states -- Weninger, whom you have just told us has every obligation to you?
A I cannot recall that statement. I may have made statements of a critical nature, but I do not recall it . . .
Q Do you deny having made that statement? Answer yes or no.
Q Did you make it in substance? In substance, did you make that statement Strassburg . . . Were you in Strassburg with Weninger in 1936?
Q But you don't deny it?
Q It is quite possible?
A It is possible but I cannot recall it. I cannot suddenly recall when I was there. in substance, the following: "When I am abroad I am ashamed to be a German." Answer yes or no.
AAt that time, it was entirely out of the question. In the year of 1936 I was very proud of the fact that I was a German.
Q And then, do you deny having made that statement to Weninger?
Q When did you make it?
Q When did you make that statement to Weninger? In short, when did you decide on making statements like that?
Q But you do not deny it?
A There was a period of time when one was not proud of Germany. I might have said it then.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the other prosecutors wish to cross examine?
DR. SEIDL: I have no questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.
Does that conclude your case, Dr. Seidl, or have you got any other evidence to offer?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, I have a questionnaire which has come back to me about the witness Alfred Hess. He was to be questioned through a questionnaire. number three, but before going into the proceedings of today, I would like, on behalf of the Defendant Hess, I would like to say that in reference to the other document which was an official report of the British Government, Lord Simon said "It has been made known to me that you have come here on a special mission and that you wish to speak to a representative of the Government. You know I am Dr. Guthrie and I am Working in the interest of our Government in order to reason with you and discuss with you what you wish to tell the Government." That was what I wished to state in the completion of my reading of the Simon matter this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you be able to finish tonight if we went on for a few minutes tonight, or not?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the answers which are given on this questionnaire are rather comprehensive. The witness was cross examined and I assume that the prosecution will wish to have the answers to the cross-examination read and I believe it is not possible to do that to day.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours an 26 March 1946.)
MARSHAL OF THE COURT: If it please the Tribunal, Defendant Streicher will be absent from this session of court.
(A recess was taken)
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I now turn to the reading of the minutes of the interrogation of the witness Alfred Hess. Before the answering of the first question, the witness made a few preliminary remarks, which are as follows:
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Where shall we find it?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I received this interrogatory only last Saturday, and it has not been possible for me to incorporate it into the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that we haven't got copies of it?
DR. SEIDL: I don't know whether the General Secretary, from whom I received this interrogatory, has supplied copies for the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you had better go on then.
DR. SEIDL: Before answering the first question, the witness made afew preliminary remarks which are as follows:
"I would like to say that I had to terminate my activity in the Ausland Organization of the NSDAP, because of the flight to England of my brother Rudolph Hess, Deputy Fuehrer. Therefore, my statements can be taken into consideration only until May 1941 and cover that period of time only.
"Question 1: What were the tasks and the aims of the Ausland organization of the NSDAP?
"Answer: The purpose of the Ausland organization was the cultural, social, and economic care of Reich Germans in foreign countries, whether they were Party members or not. The Ausland organization, in this sense, was to be a connecting link between foreign Germans and the home country.
It wanted to foster love for their Fatherland,their former home, and to promote understanding of the Fatherland as well as understanding of the Germans at home, to have the rest of the world know the problems that the Germans at home had to meet. The German abroad, through his dignified demeanor in foreign countries, was to make himself popular there in order that he might be the best possible representative of his Fatherland.
"Question 2: Who could become a member of the Ausland organization?
"Answer: This question is not quite intelligible. A membership in the Ausland organization was non-existent. There was no such thing. Neither was there a membership in the Foreign Office of the Reich or in the Gau of the NSDAP in the Reich itself.
"Question 3. Is it correct that each membership card of the NSDAP had the following principles printed on it:
"Follow the laws of the country whose guest you are. Let the activities of the host country be carried on by the people who live there, and do not interfere, not even in conversation.'?
"Answer: It is correct to say that the above basic principle was printed on the cover of the membership card. If I am not greatly mistaken, underneath this there was the warning that one would be expelled from the NSDAP if this principle were not obeyed.
"Question 4: Did the Ausland organization of the NSDAP develop any activities which might lead one to believe there was Fifth Column activity?
"Answer: Fifth Column is not a clear concept, uniformly used. In general, one would probably mean a secret activity of the nature of sabotage, and according to its basic principle, the Ausland organization could not have any such thing as its activity. I remember that the word 'Fifth Column' appeared in the foreign press, and it was considered that was done as a basis for antiFascist propaganda, and it created quite a furore. "Seriously, no state could conceive the thought that a world famous organization, which was open in all its dealings, could be used a s a secret service in the sense of a Fifth Column. I consider it a matter of course that this or that German abroad had secret missions or services to perform, such as other nationals performed for their home countries, but the Ausland organization was never the giver of such instructions nor the intermediary for them.
"Question 5. What kind, of instructions and principles did the Deputy of the Fuehrer give to the Ausland organization covering its activity?
"Answer: The directives andbasic principles laid down by the Deputy of the Fuehrer for the activity of the Ausland organization are those mentioned in my answers to questions 1 and 3. There was special emphasis, again and again, in strict directives and instructions,that they were not to do anything which might damage the host countries or anything which might be considered an interference in their internal affairs.
"His basic principle in this direction was that National Socialism was a purely German movement, that it was not an expert article which one would want to force on other countries.
"Question 6: Did the Deputy of the Fuehrer give the Ausland organization any directives or orders which might activate them to Fifth Column activity?
"Answer: The Deputy of the Fuehrer not only never gave any such orders or instructions, but, as already established in the answer to Question 5, laid down basic principles which would prohibit any activities of that sort.
"Question 7: Is this correct, that on the contrary, the Deputy of the Fuehrer was always concerned that under any and all conditions interference with the internal affairs of the host country should not take place?
"Answer: I can repeat only that it was the chief task of the Deputy of the Fuehrer to develop the activity of the Ausland organization abroad in such a way so that under any and all circumstances any interference with the internal affairs of the host country would not take place and the few insignificant offenses or infractions which took place because there were several million Germans abroad and a few offenses were inevitable and steps were taken to prosecute.
"Question 8: what were the tasks and the aims of the Volksbund fuer das Deutschtum in Ausland (Association for Germanism Abroad)?
"Answer: The Volksbund fuer das Deutschtum in Ausland was interested in taking care of the Volksdeutche culturally. Volksdeutsche are racial Germans who voluntarily renounced their German citizenship either voluntarily or through legal means and had taken over citizenship in another state, such as, for instance, citizenship in America, Hungary or other countries.
"Question 9: Did the Volksbund fuer das Deutschtum im Ausland, that is before the 10th of May of 1941, develop any activity which might have given it the appearance of a 'fifth column' agency?
"Answer: I must state in this connection that the activity of the Ausland organization did not have any connection with the Volksbund fuer das Deutschtum im Ausland, so I have no way of judging. But I consider it entirely out of the question that my brother charged the Volksbund with fifth column activities in any way or manner whatsoever. It would havebeen possible neither in his capacity as Deputy of the Fuehrer nor with his personal views as to the activity of the Volksbund im Ausland.
"What kind of directives and instructions did the Deputy of the Fuehrer give as to the activity of this Bund?
"Answer: Directives and so forth which my brother gave to this Bund are unknown to me for, as I have already stated, my activity in the Ausland organization was in no way connected with V.D.A. (Volksbund fuer das Deutschtum im Ausland).
"(Signed) Alfred Hess; attested to on the 9th of March 1946." this interrogatory. I assume that the Prosecution has submitted the result of the cross-examination or will wish to do so but if this cross-examination has not been translated, it might perhaps be practic le if it could be read and translated right now.
MR. DODD: If it please the Tribunal, we have received the crossinterrogatories but I suggest respectfully, rather than take the time to read them, we offer them and if the Court will permit us, have them translated into the four languages. It will take about ten minutes or so to read them and we are not interested in doing it unless the Tribunal feels that we should.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, Mr. Dodd.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, and gentlemen, I do not know whether the affidavit of Ambassador Gauss submitted by me yesterday has been translated and whether you have received these translations. Yesterday afternoon I gave a copy to the Information Office and since that time have not heard from them.
THE PRESIDENT: Would the Prosecution inform the Tribunal what the position is?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the Prosecution have not had a copy of this affidavit yet so we do not know what is in it. I suggest that perhaps Dr. Seidl could postpone the reading of that until we have had a chance of considering it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am afraid that must be postponed.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. substance, utterances and quotations taken from books and speeches of foreign statesmen, diplomats and economic exports, tracing the beginnings and origin of Versaille, the contents of the Treaty of Versaille and the territorial changes brought about by the Treaty of Versaille, such as the question of the Polish Corridor and above all the disasterous economic consequences which this treaty brought to Germany and to the rest of the world.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have read the documents in this book and I should like just to say one or two words about them.
politicians, economists and journalists. They are opinions that are expressed polemically and some of them journalistically, and with most of them one is familiar and has known them when they were expressed twenty-five to fifteen years ago. subject is too remote, I have a suggestion which I hope the Tribunal will consider reasonable, that the Prosecution should, as I suggested yesterday, let this book go in at the moment de bene esse and that when Dr. Seidl comes to making his final speech he can adopt the arguments that are put forward by the various gentlemen whom he quotes, if he thinks they are right. He can use the points as illustrations, always provided the thesis that he is developing is one which the Tribunal thinks is relevant to the issues before it. That will preserve for Dr. Seidl the right to use these documents, as I say, to the relevancy of the issues but I suggest that it would be quite wrong to read them as evidence at the moment. They are merely polemical and journalistic opinions and directed to an issue which the Prosecution have submitted and do submit is too remote.
However, I am most anxious that Dr. Seidl should have every advantage for his final speech. Therefore, I suggest it would be convenient if they were put in without being read at the moment and it was left subject to the limitation of relevancy which can be considered when all the evidence is before the Tribunal for him to make use of, as I suggested, in his final speech. reasonable method of dealing with such material.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, may I -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear you in a moment. Do you think the suggestion made by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe would be one which would be acceptable to you?
DR SEIDL: Mr. President, at first glance the suggestion of Sir David seems to be very reasonable, but I do not believe I should say that if the matter is treated in that way great difficulties will arise for the defense. Those arguments for the probative value, which in their nature will be used and heard in the course of this proceeding, will be used in the final speech of the defense, and this would mean that the defense counsel in his final speech again and again will be interrupted; that he will have to debate over the probative value of his quotation; that perhaps whole parts of his speech will fall by the wayside in that manner, and that in that way the danger will arise that the cohesion of his speech will be broken completely.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is a danger which every advocate has to meet, that certain portions of his speech may not be deemed revelant, but I thought that that might be a helpful way out. But if that is not accepted then the Prosecution must respectfully but very strongly submit that the issues of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles are not relevant to this Tribunal. I have already argued that and I do not want to develop it at great length. I do want to make it clear that these questions which are raised by the quotations here were, of course, the subject of political controversy in practically every country in Europe and different opinions were expresseddas to the rightness and the practicality of the provisions, especially the economic provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. I am not disputing that that was a matter of controversy, but I am saying that it is not a controversy that should come before this Tribunal. I myself have read practically all the quotations from the English statesmen here as a politician over the past years, and I am sure many people in this court must have taken one view or the other, but that is not a relevant issue to this Tribunal and, of course, especially is it wrong in my view to put forward as evidential matters opinions expressed by one side in the controversy, Every one of these speeches, as far as the writtings were in English, was either preceded by matters which they were to reply or was followed by a reply, and I should think the same applies to those of Senator Bora and the United States.
for argument, and it will have to be decided at some time what is the convenient time as a matter for the Tribunal as to whether this is a relevant issue. That was why I put forward this suggestion, that it was better to decide it when the whole of the true evidence of fact had been put before the Tribunal. But, apart from my suggestion, I do want to make quite clear that that is a matter of relevance. The Prosecution unitedly submit that the Tightness or practicality of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles is not a relevant matter. I want to distinguish between the two arguments. Another argument has been adumbrated by Dr. Stahmer as to the actual terms of the preamble to the military clauses. That is quite a different point which we can discuss when, as I understand, certain propositions of law are to be put forward by one of the defense counsel on behalf of the defense. But, as I say, the rightness and practicallity of the Treaty and especially the economic clauses is a subject of enormous controversy on which there are literally thousands of different opinions from one shade to the other, and I submit it is not an issue before this court and, secondly, I submit this is not evidence, It is not evidential matter, even if that was an issue.
DR. SEIDL: May I perhaps reply briefly?
THE PRESIDENT: Then, Sir David, would your proposition involve that Dr. Seidl could not quote from any of these documents?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Certainly, yes, if on my promise that is an irrelevant matter, he could not.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, they are not admissible.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: They are not admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My original suggestion was, of coursem leaving the discussion of whether they are admissible to all the evidence that had been filed, but if it has not been accepted, I submit bluntly, if I may use the word with all respect, that they are not admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: May I reply briefly, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, it would be a misunderstanding or a confusion of intentions if one were to assume that with the submission of this document I would like to prove whether the Treaty of Versailles is a piece of statesmanlike wisdom. I am not concerned with that. With the submission of these documents I would like to prove and would like to discuss first of all the opposite side at the conclusion of this Treaty, that is in the preliminary negotiations. I call your attention to the Fourteen Points laid down by President Wilson. I wish to discuss whether they in part committed an infraction of the general obligations of the Treaty and whether a culpa incomprahenda is to be under the discussion here or is to be assumed here.
Point 2. The submission of these documents should show whether the opposition complied with the obligation of the Treaty which were laid down for them so that we can establish and give the possibility to the Tribunal of establishing which consequences in right Germany could gather or draw.
Point 3. The Treaty of Versailles and its infractions by the defendant will take a central point and is the nucleus of Point i with reference to the idea of conspiracy. The Prosecution in replying to a question of the Tribunal as to what period of time is to be the determining factor as to the beginning of the conspiracy has said that it applies with the year 1923.
Point 4. The Prosecution -
THE PRESIDENT: I have not the least idea what you meant by the last point. I do not understand what you said in the last point in the least.
DR. SEIDL: I wanted to say that in the beginning of the conspiracy the Treaty of Versailles played a decisive part according to the Prosecution and that the origin of this Treaty has to be put in some connection of origin with the assertion of the conspiracy before we can talk about something contrary to law and guilt. Facts have to be established which help to bring about the assertion made by the Prosecution with respect to a conspiracy, Point 4. The Prosecution has proof or evidence of the comprehensive nature The Prosecution has submitted this to show the development of the NSDAP.
Many document books were submitted to the Court to prove the increase membership to show the increase of everything that took place. Now, if this evidence was relevant, it is my assertion and my opinion that even those circumstances and those facts must be relevant in seeing the whole picture, those facts which made the position of the Party to rise and flourish.
THE PRESIDENT: It is your contention that the opinion of a journalist after the Treaty of Versailles was made, stating that in his opinion the Treaty of Versailles was unjust to Germany, would be admissible either for the interpretation of the Treaty or for other purpose with which this tribunal is concerned?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I admit that, of course the particular opinion of a foreign journalist here or there must be a relevant document for evidence, but I do wish to assert that the opinion of State Secretary Lansing about the arising of the Treaty of Versailles and its connection with the history prior must be revelant for evidence, what material evidence is to be given is a question which cannot be decided at this point. This question will be decided by the Tribunal when the complete evidence has been submitted. I should like to state further that the opinion of a chairman of the committee for foreign affairs of the Senate if the United States about the treaty of Versailles, about its ramifications, about its after effects concerning the conspiracy , which was to be contrary to the Treaty of Versailles, as stated by the Prosecution can prima facie might not be revelant. The same thing applies to all the utterances quoted in the document book. was the official financial advisor to the British Government and to a group of other people.
THE PRESIDENT: It is your contention that because of the provisions of the Versailles Treaty or because of an infraction of those provisions by the signatory powers, Germany was justified in making an aggressive war?
DR. SEIDL: I cannot speak on that point decisively. As long as I have not seen the evidence of the other defendants, I cannot answer that conclusively and finally, but I do assert that in the infraction of the Treaty of Versailles by the signatory powers in certain senses the Germans and the defendants had the right to rearm and wouldhave that tendency, and that in itself is an infraction of the Treaty of Versailles with which the accused are charged.
As far as the right to an aggressive war is concerned, I would not like to make any positive commitment at this point until such a time when the High Tribunal has taken official notice of the affidavit of Ambassador Gauss.
THE PRESIDENT: One more question I should like to ask you: Are you saying that the fourteen Points which were laid down by President Wilson are admissible evidence to construe the written document of the Versailles Treaty?
DR. SEIDL: I do not say that the Fourteen Points of Wilson, per se, are admissible evidence. I do assert, on the other hand, that the connection between the Fourteen Points of Wilson with the Treaty of Versailles and the contradiction which results therefrom are significant for the conspiracy which the Prosecution is charging.
THE PRESIDENT: Then are you saying that the Versailles Treaty, in so far as it departed from the Fourteen Points, was an unjust treaty?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, whether the treaty was just or not, whether it was unjust or not, that is a point which I do not wish to prove with this document at all. Whether it was unjust or not is in my opinion a fact which perhaps is beyond the scope of this proceeding. I do assert, however, that the Treaty of Versailles, at least in many of its terns, did not bring that which the victorious states themselves expected of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything more, Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: Not at this point, your Honor.
(Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe approached the lectern.)
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, will you give way for a moment.
(Dr. Dix was approaching the lectern.)
DR. DIX: Since we are concerned with a completely practical question which was raised for debate through Sir David, and since the Defense must always count on the possibility that the Tribunal even at this point will reach a decision on the question whether and how far such documentary material as the one we are discussing now may be produced and submitted, I consider myself duty-bound to add to the explanation of my colleague, Dr. Seidl, with whom I agree, to say just a few concluding words. which started, "Do you consider it relevant?" I believe -- and I will dispense with repetition -- that a very vital point as far as relevance is concerned has not been pointed out previously, and that is the subjective aspect, that is the relevance of evidence for research into the subject at hand, that is, the inner side.
purely objectively was an infraction of the Treaty of Versailles, then as far as criminal code is concerned and looking at it from the subjective view, it is of the utmost significance that we consider the opinion of reasonable and just and educated men of all nations, an attitude and through an opinion, which is not motivated by a view which was not only his own idea, but which agrees with the men of other nations, which fought against Germany in the years 1914-1918. In order to come to the concrete rather than the abstract I would like to cite an example: I will not touch that question. But he considers that rearmamentis justified, perhaps because the terms of the Treaty were not kept by the other side or perhaps through other acts the terns of the Treaty should be considered obsolete. In my opinion it is of decisive relevancy as evidence whether this defendant -- whether his opinion out of which his acts may be explained, whether he is alone in all the world with his opinion or whether this opinion which guided his action is represented by other men who are to be taken seriously and who belonged to a nation different from Germany -even those who in the years 1914-18 stood on the other side and were opponents of Germany at that time. as such but is used by the Prosecution only as a charge for the proving of crimes in that it led to an aggressive war. If a Defendant can prove that because of clean and decent views, the views which as I have said before were held by men of other nations, and if this Defendant acted accordingly, in all pure conscience as far as international right and international morals are concerned, rather than the needs of his own country, if he acted that way, then along with his utterances, speeches, his views, we should consider the subjective aspect not only relevant but of decisive importance, and this is the view which I would like to recommend to the High Tribunal when it comes to the decision of the point at issue.
practical aspect of the case is concerned, I must agree with Sir David -and I am speaking for myself only -- that decision on this question be postponed until a later time. by Dr. Seidl, because advantages will accrue, for if the Tribunal will decide then on those questions it will have a much larger view of the relevant material for the decision of this question, and which at this point I am not in a position to treat comprehensively and exhaustively. aspect of this matter.
DR. HORN (Counsel for the Defendant von Ribbentrop):
I should like to add a few remarks to those made by Dr. Dix. I request the High Tribunal -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know how many of the Defendants' Counsel think that they are entitled to address the Tribunal. If Dr. Horn wishes to add such arguments, the Tribunal are prepared to hear them, but not prepared to hear all the Defendants' Counsel upon points such as this, at this stage. Do any of the others wish to speak? If so, the tribunal will decide now whether they will hear any more or not.
It is understood, then, that Dr. Horn alone will address a short argument to the Tribunal? If it is not, then the-Tribunal will decide whether they will hear any more argument upon the subject.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I cannot step up before my colleagues. I would just like to make a few remarks -
THE PRESIDENT: Consult your colleagues, then.
DR. HORN: If you wish a decision on this question, I must speak to my colleagues beforehand.
(Dr. Horn here consulted with a number of Defendants' Counsel) my colleagues. As far as this decision is concerned, the representative of the organization is especially interested in this point. For myself personally I would like to make the following remarks: The Prosecution -
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you to consult the other Defendants' Counsel and ascertain whether they were willing that you should be heard, and you alone. That is the only terms on which I am prepared to hear you.
(Dr. Horn again consulted with his colleagues).
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President, my colleagues are agreed that I shall make the last explanation on this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Go on.
DR. HORN: There is no doubt that the Prosecution as far as vital questions are concerned is referring to infractions of the Versailles Treaty, for the judgment of the infractions of the treaty. In my opinion, it is absolutely important to submit those facts which would deal with the treatment of the infraction as a right. There is no doubt that this treaty was signed under duress. There is no doubt that the Treaty of Versailles was concluded under duress and therefore it seems to be the well-known international law that there treaties were inadequate in many ways and leave much to be desired. The fact which would serve for proving the legality must be shown. of the question of the polemic treatment of the legal, economic and other conferences of the treaty.
first request be granted, that the legal documentary facts be submitted which would show the legal value of Versailles.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, if I might deal first with the argument which Dr. Dix has put forward, as I understood his first main proposition, it was this: treaty and can show that in the opinion of reasonable and just and educated men in the states who were the other parties to the treaty, the treaty was so bad that an infraction was justifiable, that is a permissible argument.
I submit that -- with great respect to Dr. Dix -- this is an unsound argument, and baseless, from any principle either of law of materiality. Once it is admitted that there is a treaty and that an infraction is committed, and it follows from the example which Dr. Dix was dealing with, that these are the conceded facts, it is no answer to say that a number of admirable people in the countries which were parties to the treaty believed that its terms were wrong. The treaty is there and the person who knowingly makes an infraction is breaking the treaty, however strong is his support.
In his second point Dr. Dix moved to quite different grounds. He said that this evidence might be relevant in the special reference to the question of rearmament because it might show that the treaty was considered obsolete. Now, it is a rare but nonetheless existing doctrine of international law that treaties, usually minor treaties, can be abrogated by the conduct of the contracting parties. I wouldn't contest that you can't get examples of that, although they are very rare and generally deal with minor matters. But this evidence which is before the Tribunal at the moment is not directed to that point at all. This is, in the main, contemporary polemic evidence saying that certain aspects of the treaty were bad, either from political standards or economic standards. That is a totally different argument from the one which Dr. Dix put forward and which is one which if it came up would have to be faced, that a treaty has become obsolete or that the breaches have been condoned and that therefore the terms have really ceased to exist.
Now, if Dr. Dix will forgive me -- and I am sure the fault was mine -I don't quite appreciate what he calls his subjective argument. But in so far as I did appreciate it, there seams to be very good answer -- that if he seeks to suggest that a Defendant's guilt may be less because he, the Defendant, believed the treaty was bad, that is essentially a matter which can be judged by the Tribunal who will hear that Defendant and appreciate and evaluate his point of view. It really doesn't help in deciding whether the Defendant Hess acted because he thought the Treaty of Versailles was a bad treaty, to know what the editor of The Observer, which is a Sunday paper in England, expressed as his views some twenty years age, or what the Manchester Guardian or indeed -- with all respect to them -- what distinguished statesmen have said in writing their reminiscences years after a matter occurs. The subjective point is an important point in deciding on evidence. The subjective point can be answered by the Defendant himself, in the view of the Tribunal.
Now, Dr. Horn has opened up a much wider question, and one which I submit is entirely irrelevant and beyond the scope of these proceedings.
He wishes the Tribunal to try whether the Treaty of Versailles was signed under duress.
Well, that, of course, would involve the whole consideration of the government of the German Republic, the position of the plenipotentiaries, and the legal position of the persons who negotiated the Treaty. quite clearly stated offenses, which are fully particularized and which occurred in the dates that are stated in the Indictment, and all the evidence that is given as to the actions of the pre-Nazi German government, and, indeed, the Nazi government themselves shows that for years Versailles was accepted as the legal and actual basis on which they must work, and various different methods were adopted in order to try to secure changes of the Treaty, and I need not go into with the Tribunal the whole framework of the Locarno Treaties recognizing Versailles which were signed in 1925 and which were treated as existing and in operation by the Nazi government itself. pletely remote, irrelevant and contrary to the terms of the Charter for this Tribunal to go into an inquiry as to whether the Treaty of Versailles was signed under duress.
As I gathered, Dr. Horn was not so interested in the economic clauses and their Tightness or wrongness, but I should respectfully remind the Tribunal that is a matter which is before them at the moment -- that here we have, as I pointed out before, and I do not want to repeat myself, a number of opinions expressed by people of varying eminence and with varying degrees of responsibility at the time that they expressed them, but I do--while strongly maintaining the position which I have endeavored to express with regard to the Treaty--I do equally impress my second point: That to accept as matters of evidence statements which in the main are made from a political standpoint, either in answer to an attack or in making an attack with a background of the politics of the state in which they occurred, is simply a misuse of the term "evidence". That is not evidence of any kind, and I equally -- not equally because the first point is one of primary importance which I respectfully urge to the Tribunal, but I also suggest that to tender in evidence matter of that kind is a misuse of the term "evidence"; that they are matters of argument which an advocate may adopt if the argument is a relevant one, but they should not be received in evidence by the Tribunal for that reason.