A. In point of fact, there was no real working contact such as could be expected of a modern state. Of course, there were on occasion matters that touched both of these men, and to that extent they did have contact.
Q. In what manner did this contact exist?
A. It consisted really only in this: that Ribbentrop or Himmler every other month or so got in touch with each other. Besides that we have a liaison man in the foreign office to the Reichsfuehrer SS -- in other workds, Himmler.
Q. Then how can it be explained in connection with this had relation that you just mentioned now that existed between Himmler and Ribbentrop?
A. I assume you are referring to the second question I answered. In any normal state the arrangement was made that at least the ministers saw each other once a year and exchanged opinions with each other. This, however, did not take place. But since, as we have already heard at some length, the fields of jurisdiction overlapped to a great extent and the activity of one man touched very closely on the activity of another, thus it was necessary whether one wanted it or not that there would be a connection.
Q. Did I understand you correctly that Himmler and Ribbentrop didn't meet each other?
A. They met perhaps once every three months; it could have been four months. Theymet usually only when both Ribbentrop and Himmler were accidentally simultaneously visiting Hitler.
Q And there were no special meetings? There was no business contact among them personally, was there?
Q I would like to present to you Document USSR 120, which was; already presented as evidence to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT; What was the number you gave?
GENERAL ZORYA: USSR 120. BY GENERAL ZORYA: regard to the organization of Intelligence. Are you familiar with this agreement? what you wanted to describe here. the one that actually existed. This refers to Hitler's order of the 12th of February 1944. On the basis of this order, Himmler took charge of all the activities in foreign countries without the participation of the Foreign Office, and after he had become the successor of Canaris, he reached through this order a superior position as regards the foreign countries. And if in one way or another we had not tried to have some contact with this organization then the Foreign Office would, even in foreign countries, have had no influence at all. We had to fight vigorously for this document, for on the basis of this document Himmler was, first of all, under obligation to communicate to us the information that he brought to Germany. Otherwise he brought these reports in without telling us about them. That was the reason why we reahce this working agreement. But so far as I recall, it was of no practical consequence, because the order of Hitler's on the 12th of February 1944 took place, and the agreement was not drawn up until later. That must be the general situation as regards this paper. It lasted quite a while.
Q You say that this agreement after all was never valid?
A No, I don't say that. An agreement becomes effective when it is signed, but for practical purposes it was not in effect, or hardly so.
go over to other questions. Kaltenbrunner?
A Whether I came into contact with Kaltenbrunner? Yes.
Q In regard to what questions? and from people who because of the "Nacht und Nevel" law had been transported from foreign countries and who could give me no information, I turned privately to Kaltenbrunner and pointed out to Kaltenbrunner that this order was inhuman. Kaltenbrunner then, frequently and obligingly, gave me information and I, contrary to the orders, transmitted this information further, because I held that to be humane. Those were the main points of contact between me and Kaltenbrunner. the question of Danish policemen who were incarcerated by the Gestapo in the concentration camp without any definite charges? I ask you to answer yes or no. an American interrogator--that in spite of the fact that these Danish policemen were returned to Denmark , still they were subjected to very bad treatment.
Q What was this ill treatment? that 1600 Danish policemen-
Q (Interposing) I asked you to be precise and brief. What was the manner of this ill treatment of the Danish policemen who were incarcerated without having any charges presented to them?
A These policemen were transported from Denmark. As soon as I found out about that, I went to Kaltenbrunner and asked him to treat these people as civilian internees under any circumstances and not as prisoners of war.
Q You still do not answer my question. What was the manner of this ill treatment of these Danish-policemen? carries the responsibility for this. For this I must tell you what I was about to tell you.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you answer the question? It was repeated. You must understand what the question is: What was the bad treatment? Either you know or you don't know. If you know, you can say.
THE WITNESS: So far as I remember, ten percent of these prisoners died. BY GENERAL ZORYA:
Q That is all you can tell us about this question? Denmark to me, namely, that the people could not keep their uniforms and had to wear concentration camp clothes, that these clothes were too thin, and that the policemen died of tuberculosis frequently; also, the food was not sufficient. I did not find out any more at that time. Oh, yes, also they received whippings. defendant Sauckel's activities? that so many people were being brought to Germany coercively from foreign countries.
Q Don't you recall one of the conferences in which Sauckel participated and where you were present? You also testified about this conference during one of the interrogations before this trial. Do you recruiting manpower in Russia and other countries that are beyond description?
A I didn't understand the question. 1945.
Q And here is the verbatim record, and I quote:
"However, the measures which were used while recruiting manpower in Russia and other countries are beyond description."
Do you remember this testimony?
Q You confirm this? All right, will you list briefly what were those measures that were beyond description? What were the measures that were used by Sauckel while recruiting manpower in Russia and other countries?
A I know of only one case that was reported to me at that time. It was a question of the fact that in a certain sector people were invited to a theater performance. The theater was closed and surrounded, and the people in it were brought for forced labor to Germany.
GENERAL ZORYA: I have no further questions.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: May I have the permission to ask one more question, rather to get more precise information from the witness on a question that was already asked him?
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal has already indicated that it wishes the cross examination to be cut down as far as possible, and it really cannot hear more than one counsel on behalf of each of the four countries. It doesn't wish to hear one on behalf of each of the four countries. I am afraid we can't hear any further cross examination from you.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: This is not a now question, sir. The witness didn't answer the question which was repeated to him several times.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a new counsel though.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: The Soviet prosecutor asked the witness the question, who of the defendants influenced the foreign policy of Germany. The witness replied "The Armed Forces."
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, Colonel Pokrovsky, but I have given you the Tribunal's ruling. We cannot hoar more than one counsel. I hope, as I say, that the prosecutors willmake their examination as short as possible.
M. FAURE: This witness having been already interrogated at considerable length, I wish only to ask a very short question. BY M. FAURE:
declarations, that the Embassy of Germany in Paris was under the authority of Ribbentrop and depended only on him; is that correct? about the German Embassy in Paris, that it was under the authority of Ribbentrop and that it depended only on him? would have to be known by the accused Ribbentrop? M. EDGAR FAURE: interrogatory of the witness, and I have no further questions to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 2:00 o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1400 hours.)
DR. KAUFFMAN (counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner): Mr. President, I ask you to permit me to ask one question which I could not ask before. The Russian prosecutor asked whether the witness had talked with Kaltenbrunner regarding the question of Danish policemen. I should like to make it perfectly clear how Kaltenbrunner behaved. I simply want to ask this one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Kauffmann. BY DR. KAUFFMANN: when you discussed with Kaltenbrunner the question of the Danish police who were badly treated; what did Kaltenbrunner do; how did he behave?
A The question is perhaps not correctly put. These Danish policemen were inhumanly treated, but they had just been turned over to the concentration camp. So the moment I found out about it I went to Kaltenbrunner and told him that someone must have put these people in a concentration camp, and that they must either be treated as prisoners of war or as civilian internees. Kaltenbrunner listened to me and he was also of that opinion, and he in my presence gave the order that these people should be transferred from the concentration camp to a prisoner-of-war camp. I therefore assumed that the matter was thereby settled but found out after two weeks that they were nevertheless still in the concentration camp. I turned again to Kaltenbrunner and Kaltenbrunner said he couldn't understand why this was so. I couldn't either, since it was in my presence that he had issued the orders. Subsequent negotiations were carried on regarding this matter. We had the impression that influences were at work so that Kaltenbrunner's orders were not carried out.
Q Was he against this inhuman treatment?
to a prisoner-of-war camp.
DR. KAUFFMANN: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, do you wish to reexamine this witness?
DR. HORN: I have no further questions to put to the witness. BY THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): or was he opposed to that?
Q Could you say yes or no and then explain later?
Q Was Ribbentrop in favor of the reoccupation of the Rhineland? that question.
Q Was Ribbentrop opposed to rearmament?
A I didn't know him at that time so I can't answer that question. I assume the first time, in 1936.
Q Was he in favor of the Anschluss?
Q Was he in favor of the Tripartite Pact?
MR. BIDDLE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness may retire.
DR. HORN: I presented yesterday a document and concluded that presentation with the presenting of Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 10. In this document on page thirty-five of the document book I proved that von Ribbentrop had conducted his foreign policy according to Hitler's foreign-policy line. I should like with the following documents to prove what foreign political situation Ribbentrop found when he took office in February of 1938. I ask the Court to consider the following documents, the numbers of which I can communicate to the Tribunal without its being necessary for me to read anything from them, but so that I may laterrefer to them in my presentation.
DR. HORN: The first of these documents is document Ribbentrop Exhibit 14.
It is a question here again of an extract from the Documents of German Policy, volume 1, and carries the heading "Proclamation of the Reich Government to the German People" on 1 February 1933. This document describes briefly Germany's position at that time and proclaims the intentions of the government that came to power on the 30th of January 1933. is document Ribbentrop, Exhibit 15. This document is again in the first volume of the Documents of German policy. It carries the title "Adolf Hitler's Address on the Occasion of the Inauguration of 21 March 1933, in Potsdam." In this document, too, basic expositions are made regarding the internal and external policy of the new government.
I submit as the next, document, Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 16, and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. Again, it is a document from the above-mentioned volume 1 of the documents of german policy. It is headed "Adolf Hitler's Speech on His Program at the Meeting of the Reichstag in the Kroll Opera House on 23 March 1933." Ribbentrop Exhibit No.17. It is again an excerpt from the documents of German policy.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I would not like to interrupt Dr. Horn, but not one single document among those which he now mentions, beginning with No. 14, and as far as I understand, until No. 44, inclusive, it was not put at the disposal of the Soviet prosecution and I cannot see any possibility of aiding the Tribunal in the study of this document until we have received them. I suppose that the Tribunal will judge it necessary to put off the studying of these documents until the Soviet Prosecution have received them.
DR. HORN: May I give a short explanation. I have asked to what extent the translations have progressed. Three weeks ago I gave my documents in and they were read in the regular way, the last of them about ten days ago. I was informed that the translation division unfortunately had too few Russian and French translators to translate the documents in these two languages as far as they have done so in theothers. It is, of course, a matter of course in a sphere in which I have no influence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, the Tribunal appreciates that you have done what fulfills the obligations which rested upon you and they, therefore, think that the documents should go in, subject of course to any objection being taken to them when the translations are available.
DR. HORN: I have already this morning informed Dr. Pokrovsky that this was the case and that I did not know what documents had been translated for the Russians; that was as far as I could go personally because the matter there upon lay outside my sphere.
MR. DODD: If your Honor please, I wonder if it would be possible for Dr. Horn to very briefly indicate the purpose for which he offers these documents as they come up. We will have objection to some, I know, but some of that objection may be clarified if we hear beforehand just what the purpose of the offer is.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, Dr. Horn is putting in a large number of documents at the present moment and asking the Court to takejudicial notice of them and if the prosecution finds that there is something specific that they want to object to, wouldn't it be best that they should do it hereafter?
MR. DODD: I thought it might be of assistance and save us from rising very often if he gave us some idea or some purpose of which the offer is made.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it would take longer, probably.
DR. HORN: May I make a short statement on this subject? Since 1933 my client has occupied official positions that were closely associated with foreign policy. The direction of foreign policy that had as its aim the waging of an aggressive war, has been charged against him. I now submit documents that are to demonstrate how this policy actually developed and to demonstrate that the Defendant Ribbentrop made continuous and earnest efforts to avoid a war of aggression; for example, Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 17, which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of, it is in the document book on page 40 and contains a speech of Hitler's before the German Reichstag on the National Socialist Peace Policy of 17 May 1933.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on Dr. Horn.
DR. HORN: This document of the 17th of May, 1933, I put this document in as proof of Germany's general will to disarm and as proof that the Reich Government made efforts to bring about general peace in Europe.
of Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 18. Again, a document from the same collection and is headed "Treaty of Understanding and Cooperation of the 15th of 2July 1933", known in brief as the "Four Power Pact". It is on page 42 of the document book. This Four Power Pact was inspired by Mussolini and was to take place between Germany, France, England, and Italy. Its purpose was general disarmament and above all, to make effective the revision article in the Treaty of Versailles. This treaty did not come about because France did not ratify it.
As to the next document, I submit Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 20, and ask the Court to take judicial notice of it. This is a "Proclamation of the Reich Government to the German people in connection with leaving the League of Nations." It is dated 14 October 1933. This proclamation, on the part of the Reich Government, ascertains the failure of the disarmament conference and explains Germany's reasons for resigning from the League of Nations. In connection with this proclamation, Hitler on the same day held a speech over the redio in order to justify German's withdrawal from the League of Nations. I submit this to the Tribunal as Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 21, and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. The speech is on page 45 of the document book.
In order to justify that foreign policy at that time, or to corroborate that justification, Reichspresident von Hindenburg, on the 11th of November 1933, delivered a speech to the German people.
The corresponding proclamation is Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 22 and is on page 46 of the document book. It put it in evidence and ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of at. the results of the election are made public. It is on page 49; also, the text of the election leaflet. issued a German Memorandum on Disarmament, regarding the question of disarmament. I ask the Court to take judicial notice of this as Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 25. course of the disarmament negotiations and Germany's attitude towards these negotiations. I submit it as Ribbentrop Exhibit 26 and ask the Court to take judicial notice of it. The document is on page 51 of the document book, and is headed "The German Memorandum of 19 January 1934." document Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 27, on page 53 of the document book, and is entitled "German Memorandum of March 13, 1934." I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this document. April 1934 with an Aide Memoir of the German Reich Government to the English Government. I ask the Court to take judicial notice of this document which I submit as Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 28. suggested a pact which is known under the name of the Eastern Pact. Regarding this Eastern Pact, Germany expressed its view in a communique of the Reich Government. It is on page 56 of the document book. The date is 10 September 1934. I have given it the number, Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 30. We again request that the Tribunal take judicial notice of it.
The next document is on page 57. I put it in evidence and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it as Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 31. This is from the Documents of German Policy, Volume 3, and is the reply of the Reich Government of 14 February 1935 to the suggestion for on air pact.
Germany took the following attitude toward this air pact, and I read from this excerpt, paragraph 2:
"The German Government welcomes the proposal to increase safety from sudden attacks from the ear by a convention to be concluded as soon as possible, which contemplates the immediate use of the air forces of the signatories in favor of the victims of an unprovoked air attack." On this occasion, the German Government published a proclamation to the German people. This proclomation is on page 59 of the document book. It carries the number Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 33. I submit this excerpt from the proclamation. Government of 14 April 1935 on Germany's attitude toward the Eastern Pact. It is on page 61 of the document book and I ask, without my reading anything from it, that the Tribunal take judicial notice of it. of the Versailles Treaty as an infraction of it. The states protested against the reintroduction of conscription in Germany. This protest was answered by a protest on the part of the Reich Government against the decision of the Council of the League of Nations on 17 April 1935. This protest is on page 63 of the document book. I have given this document the number Ribbentrop Exhibit 35, and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. the Council of the League of Nations, challenges the right of these people to pass judgment on Germany. Germany points out that this attitude on the part of the Council is a manifestation of renewed discrimination against Germany and. consequently repudiates it.
I turn now to Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 36 which is on page 64 of the document book. This is the German Memorandum to the Locarno Powers of 25 March 1935, concerning the incompatibility of the Soviet Pact with the Locarno Treaty. Ribbentrop actively participated in the negotiations that took place in the drawing up of the statement of Germany's attitude on this matter. I ask the Court to take judicial notice of it because it contains Germany's legal attitude toward this problem.
of the document book and it again exposes briefly the incompatibility of the Soviet Pact with the Locarno Treaty. This memorandum was also given to the Locarno Powers. Its date is 25 May 1935 and I ask the Court to take judicial notice of it.
In order to prove Germany's willingness for peace, this memorandum was preceded by a speech of Hitler's before the Reichstag on 21 May 1935. Ribbentrop at the same time submitted a German statement on disarmament to London. I ask the Tribunal to accept this as Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 37. It is on page 69 of the document book.
and the reduction of armaments, I submit Ribbentrop Exhibit Number 38, on page 77 of the document book. This is the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 18 June, 1935, in which Ribbentrop played a decisive role and for the ratification of which Ribbentrop made very particular efforts. He particularly brought the French Government, by efforts on this own part, to the point of agreeing to this Treaty which was necessary because this naval agreement would have brought about a change in Part V of the Versaille Treaty, the part that is concerned with reduction in armaments. approval to this agreement. This is Ribbentrop Exhibit Number 38. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. Ribbentrop and Hitler, considered the keystone of an exhaustive understanding between Germany and England. During the following years, as well as during his time as Ambassador in London and also as Foreign Minister, Ribbentrop made repeated efforts to bring about such a pact of agreement between Germany and England. page 79 of the document book. itself compelled on the 7th of March, 1936, to make clear its attitude through a memorandum of the German Government to the signatory powers of the Locarno Pact. This point of view is stated in document number 39. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. interested in it. Ribbentrop replied to this protest with a speech before the League of Nations. This protest, which I submit as Ribbentrop Exhibit Number 40, and which is on page 83 of the document book, I again ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice thereof. page 84 of the document book. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. It contains the last peace proposals on Germany's part in connection with disarmament plans at that time.
It is headed "*---* Plan of the German Cabinet of 31 March, 1936." reduction in the likelihood of war. and in connection with these relations, Hitler on the 30th of January, 1937, on the fourth anniversary of the National Socialist revolution, delivered a speech in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin, and he made a proposal that Germany and Italy should draw up a treaty. I ask the Tribunal to accept this as Ribbentrop Exhibit Number 19. It is on page 88 of the document book. clause in the Versatile Treaty blaming Germany for the First world War be withdrawn. I read from this document, as follows:
"I therefore formally withdraw Germany's signature to that statement that was signed by the weak German Government at that time which states that Germany was guilty of the war."
THE PRESIDENT: Are you referring to Exhibit 44?
DR. HORN: I was referring then to Exhibit Number 43, page 88.
THE PRESIDENT: There was some passage you read in it which does not appear to be translated here.
DR. HORN: Did I understand you to say that there was no English translation of it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am not quite sure. I did not catch it myself.
Did you read anything which is not in the document book?
DR. HORN: No Mr. President, I read what is in my document book. It is on page 88, paragraph three and it is the paragraph that begins, "And fourthly --"
THE PRESIDENT: Third, isn't it?
DR. HORN: Yes, paragraph three of the sentence beginning, "Fourthly --"
(Interpreter: However, I do not believe that is in the English translation.)
DR. HORN: I come now to Ribbentrop Exhibit Number 44, on page 90 in the document book, This document contains the German note on Belgian inviolability, dated 13 October, 1937.
order to make clear the German view I should like to read the last paragraph, which in my document book is on page 91, and which is headed "II", I quote:
"The German Government asserts that the inviolability and territorial integrity of Belgium are of common interest to the western powers. It confirms its determination not to impair that inviolability and integrity under any circumstances and to respect Belgian territory at all times, excepting of course, in the case of Belgium collaborating in an armed attack directed against Germany in which Germany would be involved." to explain the foreign political relationships that Ribbentrop found when he took over his office as Foreign Minister. When the time comes I Shall refer to these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you filed them in Court with the secretary?
DR. HORN: Yes. In connection with yesterday's discussion I signed these documents and gave them to the general secretary? say later regarding Ribbentrop's participation in the policy that led to the Anschluss with Austria. put in by the Prosecution, and which is contained in my document book.
I am unfortunately not in the position to tell the Court what the page numbers are because we have not yet received the document book from which I am now to cite. This document follows Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 44, which is on page 90 of the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. 44 is the last do current in the second document book. There are not any more, are there? There are not any more.
DR. HORN: I was informed today that the English document book was finished and had been given to the Tribunal. We unfortunately have not received a copy, so I cannot give you the pagination.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am afraid that we do not have it. We have only these two and the last exhibit in the second book is No. 44, which you have just read. If that document has already been put into evidence, it is not necessary for you to produce it. You can say that you rely upon it. That is all that is necessary.
DR. HORN: But I believe that we must immediately decide the question as to the continuation of my presentation. I want to make clear that after the Tribunal had ruled on the way in which documents were to be presented, I immediately submitted my documents to the Tribunal in a prescribed way, in that I gave them my document books with my signature. The translation department was unable to keep up, and I am now in the unfortunate position of being unable to provide the Tribunal with the assistance of the translation. Should I then continue my presentation without it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Horn, we think you had better go on. Just notify us what the documents are and whether they are already in evidence or whether you are offering then in evidence now. You have told us 386-PS, but we can take a note of the fact that that is already in evidence. I do not know whether all your other documents are documents which are already in evidence or whether there are any documents which are not in evidence or whether they are documents which you are now going to offer in evidence.
DR. HORN: The following documents are new. As to 386-PS, I should like to say that Ribbentrop was not one of those who were present. This document is the well known Hoszbach document, and Ribbentrop found out about it only here in Nurnberg.
The next document to which I wish to refer is Document No. 2461-PS, already submitted by the Prosecution, the official communication regarding the meeting between Hitler and Schuschnigg in Berchtesgaden on the 12th and 15th of February, 1932. I refer to this document to prove to what extent Ribbentrop participated in this discussion. to take judicial notice is Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 11, which is in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, the Tribunal does not think it is really necessary for you to refer to any documents which are completely in evidence already unless you are going to read some passage in them and rely upon some passage in them which has not already been read. I mean, supposing that the Prosecution read a particular sentence out of a particular document and you went to refer to some other sentence in it, then it will probably be right for you to indicate that but, if the document has been read in full, any further reference is a more matter of argument and is not really a matter of evidence, and you will be at liberty, you see, to argue it whenever you come to make you speech. So that, I mean, as a matter of time saving, it would not be necessary to refer us to 386-PS or 2461-PS unless there is some passage in them which you rely upon and which has not been read by the Prosecution..
DR. HORN: Very well. I may now turn then to Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 11and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. It is an agreement between the German Reich Government and the Austrian Federal Government on the 11th of July, 1936. When, on the 12th of February, 1938, Ribbentrop went with Hitler to Berchtesgaden to have a conference with Dr. Schuschnigg, then chancellor of Austria, he had not known that Hitler's plans had deviated between the plans of 1936 between Germany and Austria, and he conducted his discussion with Schuschnigg in the spirit of the agreement of 1936. In this contention after one month the Anschluss with Austria came about. As proof that this Anschluss corresponded to the wishes of the Austrian population, I refer to Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 12, of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice. It is the result of the national plebiscite to the greater German Reichstag of the 10th of April, 1938. From this document it is to be seen that at that time in Austria, 4,400,000 people had the right to vote.
