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.
May I add an explanatory remark. If the Court is interested in seeing the original, the collection which is up in the document room would have to be brought down.
This collection is in the German language and I do not believe that it would be of any value to the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Dr. Horn, as a matter of formality and certainty, the Tribunal ought to have in its record every document which forms part of the record, whether it is an original or whether it is a copy, and whatever the document is that is offered in evidence, it ought to be handed in to the Tribunal and kept by the Tribunal. It ought to be offered in evidence and handed in to the General Secretary or his representative, and then the Tribunal has a full record of every document which is in evidence.
But we can't treat documents such as this, which is a mere copy of the originaal document which ought to be offered in evidence. If it is at the information center, then it is quite capable of being produced here.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, the Court decided some time ago that we are justified in copying documents and certifying the authenticity so that these documents may be submitted in evidence. Therefore, as far as the evidence that we have on hand is concerned, we compared the copies with the original and at the end of the document we attested the authenticity of the copies. I certified it with my own signature. This document is, I believe, in the hands of the Tribunal, with five copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr. Dodd.
MR. DODD: We think that this might be helpful; We say that we are willing to accept this quotation from the volume referred to, and I do think that we did put in some documents ourselves and ask the Court's indulgence at the time in something of the same fashion. document on that same basis. French and Russian colleagues will agree as well.
THE PRESIDENT: I think, Mr. Dodd, the point is -- and, of course, it is probably only a formal point -- that the only document which is offered in evidence or put in evidence is a copy which doesn't contain Dr. Horn's signature and therefore there is nothing to show that it is in fact a true copy.
Of course, if we had Dr. Horn's signature, we should be prepared to accept that it was a true copy of the original. What we have got, of course, is a mere mimeograph, I suppose, of some document which hasn't been produced to us.
MR. DODD: Very well, Your Honor. I hadn't had an opportunity to examine it carefully. We didn't get this document, by the way, until pretty late last night. We have not had the usual period of time to examine it, but in any event, I have suggested it might go in and if Dr. Horn would verify it, as suggested by the Lord Justice and later furnish the original copy, it might be all right.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be all right, certainly.
Dr. Horn, you understand what I mean. If you will produce to us at some future date the actual document which you signed yourself, to show that it was a true copy, that will be quite satisfactory.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, in the entire document book there is no document which I have not signed in five copies and given to be translated. Of course, I cannot sign all the translations. Each document which is contained in your document book had my signature in the German text.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that you have handed your documents in to be translated, in German, with your signature on the bottom saying it is a true extract, and you don't know where those documents are because they have gone into the Translation department. That is right, isn't it ?
DR. HORN: Only partially, Mr. President. I know that I handed these documents, in German, to the proper office, and my signature was on the German text. That office sent them on to be translated. From the moment I gave the document up I had no further control over their whereabouts or their disposition. only available in a single copy for the use of all attorneys and the same obtains now for our future work. Because of that, I cannot produce the original since it is not my property.
That can only happen with the agreement of the person in charge of the document book, Lt. Shrader.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, if, in thefuture, you and the other defense counsel could get your document books ready in sufficient time, you could perhaps then make the arrangement that you hand the document book, when you were offering it, in evidence, and then it would be capable of being handed to the officer of the Court.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I do not believe that that possibility would exist at all, for these documents of German politics -- just to use the point at issue -- are available only in one copy at the disposal of all defense attorneys. I cannot take these books away from my colleagues if they wish to continue working on them, and I cannot submit them to the High Tribunal as evidence. I receive these books only to use them, and then I have to return the books.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you are putting in evidence now a certain extract from the book,and all the Tribunal wants is that that extract be certified, either by you or by some other person who can be trusted, as a correct extract from the book, and that document, so signed, can be produced. It may be difficult to produce it at the moment because you have handed it in to some official or to somebody in the Translation Department and therefore you can't produce it, but it could be arranged that it should be produced in the future. I don't mean this particular one, but in the future other defense counsel can produce their documents certified by themselves or by some other person of authority.
DR. HORN: That has already been done, Mr. President. Five document books of the same type were handed to the Tribunal and they were all signed. Five copies were handed in.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the rule of the Tribunal happens to be that they should be handed in in this court at the time that they are being used, as well as their being handed in to somebody for the purpose of translation. That is the rule. time over this.
DR. HORN: I have just heard that the documents which I Signed are being sent for from the General Secretary, so I will be able to submit them to the Tribunal signed in German.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HORN: I would like to continue. Regarding the legal consequences of thepact made between France and Russia in 1937, I would like to quote from page 3, that is, page 8 of the document books:
"Consequently, the real question is whether France by accepting treaty obligations has kept herself within those limits, as regards Germany, which were imposed on her by the Rhine pact.
"This, however, the German government must deny.
"The Rhine pact was supposed to achieve the goal of securing peace in Western Europe by having Germany on the one hand, and France and Belgium on the other, renounce for all time the employment of military force in their relations to each other. If, at the conclusion of the pact, certain reservations to this renunciation of war, going beyond the right of selfdefense, had been permitted, the political basis was, as is generally known, solely the fact that France had already taken on certain pact obligations towards Poland and Czechoslovakia which she did not want to sacrifice to the idea of absolute peace security in the West.
Germany at that time resigned herself, with a clear conscience, to these restrictions of the renunciation of war. She did not object to the treaties with Poland and Czechoslovakia, put on the table of Locarno by the representative of France, but only with the self-understood presupposition that these treaties adopt themselves to the structure of the Rhine pact and not contain any provisions about execution of Article 16 of the Statute of the League of Nations, as are provided for in the new French-Soviet agreements. This corresponded also to the contents of this special agreements, which came to the knowledge of the German Government at that time. The exceptions permitted in the Rhine pact by all means are not expressly oriented towards Poland and Czechoslovakia, but were formulated in an abstract manner. But it was the sense of all negotiations concerning this matter to find a balance between the German-French renunciation of war and the desire of France for maintaining her pact obligations already in existence. If, therefore, France now uses the abstract formulation of war possibilities, permitted by the Rhine treaty, in order to conclude a new pact against Germany, a new pact with a well armed State, if she thus in such a decisive manner limits the application of the renunciation of war, agreed upon by her and Germany, and if she, by doing as so set forth above, does not even observe the fixed formal juridical limits, then she has created thereby a completely new situation and has destroyed the political system of the Rhine poet as much in theory as in practice." book as follows:
"The German Government has always emphasized during the negotiation of recent years that it would maintain and carry out the obligations resulting from theRhine pact so long as the other partners to the treaty are willing on their part to adhere to this pact. This self-explanatory presuppoisition cannot any longer be regarded as fulfilled by France. France has replied to the friendly offers and friendly assurances, made again and again by Germany, with a military pact with the Soviet Union, directed exclusively against Germany and in violation of the Rhine pact. Therefore the Rhine pact of Locarno lost its inner meaning and has ceased to exist in any practical sense. For that reason Germany on her part does not consider herself bound any longer to this void pact."
question him about this supposed position of England by a reoccupation of Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: You are reading from the document, are you not, Dr. Horn? You began to tell us something about Hitler.
DR. HORN: Yes, I interrupted in order to bring in the role of Ribbentrop briefly. On the basis of this pact and the intention of the French General Staff, Hitler summoned the defendant Ribbentrop.
THE PRESIDENT: Are shall hear that from von Ribbentrop, shall we not?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, we are permitted to tie in a few connecting words to the documents. I can explain.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Colonel Pokrovsky.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: As far as I understand, the Tribunal has already explained to the defense that the defense can submit documents. However, Dr. Horn does not consider it necessary to stick to the documents but deviates all the time. I have had the opportunity to notice just now that in the document which he has just cited as "Ribbentrop 1", there is complete absence of any reference to the plans of the French General Staff. Among the documents which are in the book of documents submitted by the defense I also could find no copies whatsoever referring to the French General Staff. That is quite incomprehensible. How is it that Dr. Horn appears to be informed with regard to the plans of the French General Staff? On what basis does he refer to these plans since they seem to be completely absent from the documents/which he refers?
DR. HORN: Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: One minute. Now, Dr. Horn, what you have just been telling the Tribunal then was not anything explanatory of the document, but you were telling us what Hitler did and what the defendant Ribbentrop did in consequence of what Hitler did. That is not in evidence. You cannot tell us what is not in evidence. You could only give us explanatory remarks to make the document itself intelligible.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, the defendant von Ribbentrop is accused of carrying on foreign political activities.
The Prosecution has interpreted the foreign political activity according to their light and we were permitted not to give a speech but, in connection with the documents submitted, to show our view, which is opposite to that of the Prosecution, and in order to do that, I must refer to certain facts, documents and quotations. I cannot give a complete picture if I may just submit a document without giving a frame to this matter and show the course of events as they took place.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, the Tribunal is not expecting you to give a complete picture at this stage. All you are doing atthe present moment is introducing the evidence. You are going to give the complete picture when you make your final speech. This document is perfectly intelligible. It is a document which is well known, but it is perfectly intelligible without telling us what Hitler or the defendant Ribbentrop did.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, a little while ago, as far as the objection of the Russian prosecution is concerned, I asked forvon Neurath as a witness. I can only interrogatehim on this point only aftervon Neurath is in the witness box. But it seems to me that I may refer to facts which are evidence to the contrary.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, that would be his function. If you are going to tell us what you think the defendant von Neurath is going to say in answer to questions which you put to him that would be making an opening statement. Well, that has not been provided for by the Charter. We must wait until you question von Neurath.
DR. HORN: Now I will read from the quotation from Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 1 on page ten of the document book.
"The German Government therefore is forced to face the new situation created by this alliance, a situation which is made more critical by the fact that the French-Soviet pact has found its supplement in a pact of exactly parallel nature--between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. In the interest of the elementary right of a nation to safeguard her borders and for the sake of preserving her possibilities for defense the German Reich Government has therefore re-established the full and unrestricted sovereignty of the Reich within the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland, effective today." Through this step of the German Government certain articles of the Treaty of Versailles which were concerned with the demilitarization of the Rhine -these terms had become obsolete since this morning a decision of the Court does not permit me to make any statements about Versailles nor take a position on Versailles.
I ask that I may turn to the document Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 8 which is found on page twenty-one of the document book. May I put a question, Mr. President? Versailles is concerned? These things were exchanged between governments before the Treaty of Versailles -- these are purely government documents -but no arguments about the treaty.
May these documents be submitted in line with the decision?
THE PRESIDENT: The ones on page twenty-one?
DR. HORN: I mean Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that?
DR. HORN: It is on page fourteen of the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, the Tribunal would like to know what issue in this trial this document is relevant to.
DR. HORN: I wanted to justify German opinion to the Treaty of Versailles. We are concerned with Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 2 and we are dealing with the notes of Germany addressed to the United States with an offer for a truce and for a conclusion of the peace. and I wanted to show further through the next note that this offer was based on the Fourteen Points of President Wilson. Further, from Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 4, I wanted to prove that the peace and the truce were concluded on the basis of the Fourteen Points with two exceptions. I also wanted to show through Ribbentrop Exhibit -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I tried not to interrupt, but really this is the issue which the Tribunal ruled on a fortnight ago when the defendant Goering, I think, applied for documents on exactly this issue; and that also, as I understand, the Tribunal ruled on again this morning. The only issue to which this can be directed is whether the Treaty of Versailles was in accordance with the Fourteen Points and if it was therefore an unjust treaty, and it comes directly within the Tribunal's ruling of an hour ago.
DR. HORN: May I add something more, Mr. President? As far as I and my colleagues could interpret the ruling of the Tribunal, we are prohibited from using explanations or statements on the injustice of the Versailles Treaty and also about the fact that this Treaty was concluded under duress. We interpreted it only in that way and no other way.
THE PRESIDENT: That was why I asked you to what issue you said this was relevant, and you said that it was relevant to show what the German opinion on the Treaty was.
Well, these are documents before the Treaty was made and they seem to be only relevant upon the question whether or not the Treaty was a just treaty or not a just treaty.
DR. HORN: I personally did not want to prove through this document whether the Treaty of Versailles and the peace was just or unjust; I wanted to show that it was a treaty which had many legal loopholes and inadequacies, since the main treaty was not in line with the agreements of the preliminary treaty.
THE PRESIDENT: If the main treaty was not in accordance withthe preliminary treaty then the main treaty would, according to that argument, be an unfair treaty. That is the very point upon which the Tribunal has ruled.
DR. HORN: For that reason, Mr. President, I omitted these documents and said that I will not refer to those documents, as was suggested by the ruling of the Court. I will now turn to document number eight.
THE PRESIDENT: As you are going through a lot of documents we might break off for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)