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.
THE TRIBUNAL: (Mr. Biddle) Sir David, is there anything in the Versailles Treaty that either calls for disarmament by the signatories ether than Germany or which looks to such disarment, and, if there is, could you give us the reference to it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, it is the preamble to the military clauses. That is the point that is usually relied on. It is about four lines at the beginning of the military clauses, and that, in quite general terms, looks to a general disarmament after Germany has disarmed, and of course, the position was that -- I think I have the dates right -- the disarmament was accepted, Whether, in view of the evidence in this case, it should have been accepted does not matter; it was accepted in 1927. After that, you may remember, there were a number of disarmament conferences which examined that question, and eventually in 1933 Germany left the then existing disarmament conference.
Now, I am trying to be entirely objective. I do not want to put the Prosecution view or the Defense view, but that is the position.
MR. BIDDLE: I am not quite clear, when you said "accepted", you meant the extent of the disarmament called for had been accepted by Germany?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, that Germany's response to the demand of Versailles was accepted by the Allies in 1927, and the disarmament commission which had been in Germany then left Germany, under, I think, a French General Denoue.
MR. BIDDLE: Then, what I understand you to argue is that nothing contained in this folder has anything to do with the possible issue.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: No, no.
MR. BIDDLE: That is the point?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: It is not on that issue. I mean we will deal with that issue when we come to it. I rather thought from some words that Dr. Stahmer dropped that that would be one of the points that we should meet in the general argument on law which will be presented, which the Defense Counsel have -
DR. SEIDL: (Counsel for Defendant Hess) I believe that Sir David is guilty of a small error. In book three of the document books for the Defendant Hess, there are a number of citations from foreign statesmen that refer to this military preamble in the Versailles Treaty and in which it is stated that Germany had fulfilled its obligations in the Versailles Treaty but that there were reciprocal obligations that were not fulfilled.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I am sorry. I did not remember any. I have read it through, and there may be some collateral matters dealing with that, but --and I do not think that I am doing Dr. Seidle's great industry in collecting these matters an injustice in saying that if they do exist they are collateral and the main point of this is an attack on the political and economic clauses of the Treaty. I hope that I have done him justice. I meant to. That is the impression made on me.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn).
(A recess was taken until 1400)
THE MARSHAL: If it please the Tribunal, may I report that the defendant Streicher will be absent from this session of Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that evidence as to the injustice of the Versailles Treaty or whether it was made under duress is inadmissible, and it therefore rejects Volume III of the documents on behalf of the defendant Hess.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President and My Lords Justice, since document three for Rudolf Hess is not admissible in evidence I am, so far as the submission of documents is concerned, at the end of my proceeding . submitted made out by Ambassador Gauss, and I not to decide about the admissibility of this document until I have had opportunity to present arguments about the relevance of this affidavit and the secret treaty which is dealt with therein. I would like to point out that with this affidavit solely the facts and the contents of this secret treaty are to be proved; and therefore I shall read only excerpts from it so that the events leading up to it shall not be considered and touched upon by me.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, we understand that this affidavit of the witness Gauss is now being translated and is going to be submitted to the various prosecutors, and will be submitted to us, and they will then inform us. We shall then be able to see whether it is admissible or not, and they will be able to tell us whether they want to have the Ambassador here for the purpose of cross examining him.
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: So we must postpone that until we get the translations.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. I had the intention to call the defendant as a witness himself. In consideration for his attitude as to the competency of this Court, he has asked me to dispense with this procedure. I therefore forego the testimony of the defendant as a witness and have no further evidence to put in at this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Ribbentrop.
DR. HORN: Dr. Horn, on behalf of the defendant Ribbentrop. beginning of the evidence to make the following statement for him:
"As Foreign Minister for the Reich, I had to carry through the foreign political directives and principles of Adolf Hitler. For the foreign political deeds which I carried through, I accept full responsibility."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, I thought defendants' counsel knew that the rule which we have laid down is that at this stage no speeches shall be made, but that the evidence should be called, the oral evidence should be called, and the documents should be briefly referred to and offered in evidence. Did you not understand that?
DR. HORN: I did not know, Mr. President, that I might not make an explanatory statement on behalf of my client.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal has laid down on several occasions, I think verbally and certainly once in wilting, that no speeches can be made now, but that speeches can be made at the time laid down in the Charter. The present opportunity is for all evidence to be given and for documents to be offered in evidence, with such explanatory observations upon the documents as may be necessary.
DR. HORN: The former Foreign Minister for the Reich, Joachim von Ribbentrop, is, according to the Prosecution and the Indictment, according to the trial brief of the British delegation and the verbally presented charges, accused of all items contained in paragraph 6 of the statute and the crimes enumerated therein. Tribunal of the 8th of January 1946, charged my client with crimes as follows: connections with Hitler to facilitate the taking over of power through the NSDAP and the preparation of war.
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Dr. Horn, are you making a speech or what are you doing?
DR. HORN: No, Mr. President. I am just enumerating on one page how I would like to arrange my evidence -
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HORN: --and I request that I may carry this scheme through. planning and preparation of the National Socialist conspiracy for aggressive war and the war against International treaties. execution of the plans of the foreign politics as planned by the political conspiracy. humanity, especially crimes against persons and property in occupied countries. counts. In order to exonerate him from these charges, I will begin with my presentation of evidence. Exhibit Number 5, document PS-2829, and said that the defendant von Ribbentrop was an SS Obergruppenfuehrer.
The Prosecutor asserted that this rank was not an honorary one.
On the contrary, the defendant asserts that this rank, which was bestowed upon him by Hitler, of an SS Gruppen and later Obergruppenfuehrer, was granted him only on an honorary basis, for Hitler wished that the members of the Government at official functions would appear in uniform, and the rank of an SS Gruppenfuehrer was in keeping with the official position of the defendant. unit. Neither did he have any military training which would be in keeping with a high military rank of any such nature, and for that point I would like to use the defendant himself as a witness. of power for a short period of time was adviser of the Party in foreign political matters. This assertion is contradicted through the document PS-2829, and this document is contained in the document book. I will read Point 3 where it says "Foreign policy collaborator to the Fuehrer, from 1933 to 1938." I am quoting from the first document of the document book, Ribbentrop, Number 1: "Then in the years 1933 to 1938 was only Hitler's adviser in foreign political questions." this is document number 2 in the document book, Ribbentrop. We are concerned with an excerpt from the Archives for Communist affairs, that the defendant even before 1932 worked for the NSDAP since he had entered the Party service after 1930. The Prosecution is stating the argument on paragraph 2, which says:
"With reference to his foreign contracts, he arranged new connections with England and France, which be, since 1930 in the service of the NSDAP, had known how to expand."
This claim is not correct. The defendant has up until 1932 no member of a political party in Germany and not of the NSDAP. As far as his political views were concerned, he leared toward the German Volkspartei. That was the party of Strebemann.
In the year 1932 the defendant met Hitler personally. His views on political matters of an internal and external nature -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Dr. Horn, I don't want to interrupt you on this, but I don't understand what you are doing now.
You seem to me to be stating a part of the evidence which presumably the defendant von Ribbentrop will give, and, if so, when he gives it it will be cumulative to your statement.
by the Prosecution and answering them yourself. Well, that isn't what the Tribunal desires at this stage. It quite understands that at the appropriate time you will make whatever argument you think right with reference to the evidence which has been brought forward on behalf of von Ribbentrop. But, as I have already said, I thought quite clearly, what the Tribunal wants done now is to hear all the evidence on behalf of von Ribbentrop and to have offered in evidence the documents upon which you will rely, with any short explanatory statement as to the meaning of the document. And if there is any part of a document which has been produced by the Prosecution but not cited by them which you think it necessary to refer to as explanatory of the part of the document which has been used by them, then you are at liberty to offer in evidence that part of the document with any short explanatory words that you wish. But I don't understand what you are doing now except making a speech.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I was using the evidence which I wish to present against the claims of the prosecution, for, according to my information and according to my proof and documents, they are not true as to fact. As far as the establishment of point one of what Mr. President just discussed, I would like to state that the health of the Defendant von Ribbentrop is quite poor at present. This morning, his medical advisor told me that von Ribbentrop has vasomotor difficulties which prevent him from speaking and I wanted to present this evidence myself, to show the position of the Defendant to the high Tribunal. I do not know whether the defendant, because of his current state of health as far as the inadequacy of speech is concerned, could make these explanations as briefly as I myself could make them. Then, when the defendant is in the box, he can confirm these statements under oath.
THE PRESIDENT: If the Defendant von Ribbentrop is too ill to give evidence today, then he must give evidence on some future occasion. If you got any oral witnesses to call other than the Defendant Ribbentrop, then they can give evidence today; and with reference to the documentary evidence, it is perfectly simple for you to offer those documents in evidence in the way that it was done by Dr. Stahmer, in the way that it was done by Dr. Seidl, and in the way in which the Tribunal have explained over and over again.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I had intended to submit documents and later on to call my witnesses. As far as von Ribbentrop is concerned, I would like to state that his state of health has not been improved and I do not know whether at the end of the presentation of evidence, I will be in a position to summon the Defendant Ribbentrop and I must deal with the possibility that I might not be able to call him. I am concerned with just these few general points.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you can't give evidence at any rate andif you can't call von Ribbentrop, then you must call some other witnesses who will give the evidence which he would have given if it is possible to do so. If, unfortunately, it is not possible to do so, then his case might suffer; but the Tribunal will give every possible facility for his being called at any stage. If he is in fact ill, as you suggest, that hecan't give evidence, then his evidence may be putover until the end of the defendant's case, subject of course to a proper medical certificate being produced.
DR. HORN: If The Court will wish to summon the defendant later, I will postpone his case with the request that if I cannot question hi, that is, cannot hear him in completeness -- I would like to emphasize again, he is happened in his speech -- then he will be able to confirm or attest the evidence *---* witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You may call any of the witnesses. The Tribunal hasn't laid down that the Defendant must be called first. You have applied for eight witnesses, I think, in addition to the defendant and you can call any of them or you can deal with your documents but whichever you do, you must do it in the way the Tribunal has ordered.
DR. HORN: Then, I would turn to the occupation of the Rhineland. On the 27/2/1936, between the French Republic and the Soviet Union, a mutual agreement was ratified between these two countries and the content of this treaty was definitely against the Locarno Treaty and against international law. It was clearly pointed against Germany. At the same time -
THE PRESIDENT: You just said that something or other is against international law. Now, that is not a reference to any document which you are offering in evidence nor is it the production of oral evidence. If you have got a document to offer, kindly offer it and then make any necessary explanatory remarks.
DR. HORN: Then, I would like to refer to document No. 1 in Document Book Ribbentrop. We are concerned with a memorandum of the German Government to the signatory powers of the Locarno Pact, of the 7th of March 1936.
THE PRESIDENT: Which page is that?
DR. HORN: Document book, page 6. As an explanatory note, I would like to add that this memorandum was submitted to the signatory powers, for between the French Government and the Soviet Union a treaty of mutual assistance had been ratified and at the same time, the German Foreign Office received knowledge of a plan which the French General Staff had worked out and which had the idea that the French army was to advance according to the Main Line, so that North and Southern Germany would be separated; then also to give -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, for the formality of the record, itis necessary to offer each document in evidence and the document should be given a number. You haven't yet offered any of these documents in evidence or given any numbers, so far as I know.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I gave the number, Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 1, to this document and the number is in the upper right hand corner of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HORN: And I ask, perhaps to save time, I wish to submit these documents as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; and in the order in which you quote them.
DR. HORN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: They will be numbered that way. Very well.
DR. HORN: As to the particulars just quoted about the reasons for this memorandum, to prove the just quoted Pact, regarding the conference of the General Staff, I wish to call the Defendant von Neurath as a witness. I would like to question him when he is put on as a witness. In order to justify the German view, which is contained in this memorandum and which consists in the fact that the Locarno Pact and the League of Nations were considered infringed upon, I would like to refer to page three of the document and wish to quote the following: This is page eight of the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: This document Exhibit No. 1, was it one of the documents for which you applied and which you were allowed in the applications?
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President. This document is concerned with excerpts from the documents of the German Politics, volume 4, Deutschen Politik, volume 4. That group of documents was granted to me at the same time the evidence book was.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the original document.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, we are not in a position to present original documents, since the Foreign Office was confiscated by the victorious powers, including the documents. Then I would like to have the power concerned produce the original documents, for we have no possibility of producing these documents. We can only refer to groups or collections of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Where does the copy come from?
DR. HORN: This copy, Mr. President, is from the documents of the German Politics, volume 4, as it is shown in the document book which Mr. President has before him. The document will be found on page 123 of this group of documents.