Does the clerk have it?
DR. HORN: It is in the document book as Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 12.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it goes from ten to fourteen for some reason. Let me lock at it. There is some mistake, apparently. It has not been copies, that is all. It is not in our books, but here it is, so it is all right. Go on.
DR. HORN: It is to be seen in this document that the Austrian people voted for it. 99.73 per cent of all votes cast expressed their desire for the Anchsluss.
As to the next document, I submit Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 13. I ask the Tribunal to take Judicial notice of it. I submit this document, Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 13, as proof that, as developed in later negotiations, the Anschluss would not have come about had it not been for the cooperation of the English Government. I should like as proof of this to read the following from this document, Exhibit No. 13. This is a statement by undersecretary of State before the House of Commons, and it reads as follows. The beginning of it was held on the 14th of March, 1938.
"The English Government has negotiated with friends of the Geneva Convention the new situation and they are unanimous that a discussion of the Austrian situation could lead to no satisfying results, but that the result would probably be another humiliation. The Undersecretary of State stated that England had undertaken no special guarantees for the independence of Austria, which is forced upon it by the Treaty of St. Germain."
I ask the Tribunal to take Judicial notice of this document. In connection with this, there took place the reunion of Austria as set down in the law of 19 March 1938, which also was signed by Ribbentrop. related to the question of Austria. I could now -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Doctor. Dr. Horn, the only desire of the Tribunal is to save time and we observe from the index in your document book that there are, I think, over three hundred separate documents upon which you wish to rely, and most of them appear to come from the various books, the German White Books, which the Tribunal provisionally allowed to you.
Would the most convenient course not be for you to put them in in bulk, saying that you are putting in Exhibits 44 to 314, or whatever it may be, rather than simply detail each document by its number?
If there is any particular passage which you want to read at this moment, you can do so; but it seems unnecessary to take up time simply to give each exhibit number, one after the other.
DR. HORN: Very well, Mr President, I shall mention these numbers, from such and such to such and such and when it is a matter of a specific number I shall mention that and ask the Court to consider it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: I may turn now to the question of Czechoslovakia. The American Prosecutor stated in his presentation that this concluded a course of events that strikes me as one of the most wretched chapter in the history of relations between peoples -- the destruction of the weak and small Czechoslovak people, I read a few chapters from Lord Rothermere's book, "Warnings and Prophecies," which was also cited by the Prosecution. It is Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 45 -
THE PRESIDENT: Did the Tribunal allow Lord Rothermere's book?
DR. HORN: The Tribunal allowed it and even put at my disposal an English copy, which I herewith hand to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: You remember that the question of admissibility was to be finally determined when each book is offered in evidence, and I think you will remember that the-Tribunal stated in one of its orders that the opinions of particular authors upon matters of ethics, history and events would not be admitted. British Government, and therefore, unless there is some very particular reason, it wouldn't appear that his books or statements in his books are in any way evidence.
DR. HORN: It is a question here of any sort of polemic -
TEE PRESIDENT: No, but you see, the distinction which exists is this: The Tribunal under Article 21 is directed to take judicial notice of official government documents, reports, and so forth. This is not an official report or a government document. You say it is factual, it is evidence. It isn't evidence, for the purpose of this Tribunal, of any facts stated in it. So far as it is facts, it isn't evidence of the facts, and so far as it is opinion, it is Lord Rothermere's opinion.
Well, Dr. Horn, can you tell me what you want to prove by it?
DR.HORN: I should like to prove, first, a few historical facts; secondly that the difficulties which are to be found in Czechoslovakia led to a showdown with this German minority and consequently with the German Government.
I want to provide you with the reasons and motives that led to the incorporation of Sudetenland into Germany.
MR. DOOD (for the United States): very strenuously to this offer, but for the very reason given by Dr.Horn in the first place, and for the reasons given secondly, if I understood the translation correctly. I understood him to say in the first place it was offered to prove there was no such thing as a Czechoslovak people. I think that is a matter that cannot properly be raised here before this Court. We object furthermore for the reasons given in the second explanation by Dr. Horn.
DR. HORN: May I again point out that herewith I wish to prove the motives that led to the separation of the Sudetenland in 1938. If I wish to adopt an attitude toward this question and adjudge it, I must also be able to adopt an attitude toward the motives. This is a prerequisite for any sort of legal adjudication. Nations as admissible evidence. If I had been permitted them, I could have at referred to these official documents, but since I did not get my hands on them I resorted to this means to provide the Court with the facts.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat that, about the League of Nations? I didn't catch what you said.
DR. HORN: The documents regarding the minorities, which are in the possession of the League of Nations library -- I asked for these as admissible evidence. The General Secretary is trying to get hold of them, but so far I have not got my hands on them. Consequently, for the lack of these official documents I had to fall back on this less admissible source of evidence, namely, Lord Rothermere's book.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you specified the passages in the book which you wish to refer to? I mean, have you marked them somewhere in some copy of the book?
DR. HORN: The documents regarding minorities in Czechoslovakia, to the extent that they are in the form of admissible documents, are in the League of Nations library or in the International Court at The Hague. Nations regarding minorities. It is an official document collection.
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you whether you had specified the particular passages in Lord Rothermere's book which you want to put in.
DR. HORN: I am sorry. I misunderstood your question. Could I request you again to give the question that you put ?
THE PRESIDENT: The question I asked was, whether you have specified that particular passages in Lord Rothermere's book which you want to use?
DR. HORN: I have marked these passages, and it is page 137, 150, 138 151, 138 -
THE PRESIDENT: 137, 138-
DR. HORN: 161, 162, 140, 044, 145 157. These are in each case just short paragraphs.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Horn, it is an appropriate time for us to break off, if we may.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, The Tribunal will rule upon the admissibility of these passages from Lord Rothermere's book when they have had the translation submitted to them. In the meantime, will you go on presenting your documents in the way that I suggested, and not stopping to detail any of them except those that you particularly want to.
DR. HORN. Very Well. territories of Czechoslovakia led to the formation of the Sudeten German Party, and the cooperation of that Party and consultation with German official sources arose. of directives given to him, had conferences with leaders of that German national group. As evidence, a number of documents have already been submitted by the prosecution, to which I propose to refer later. In this connection may I ask to make a correction in the document 2788-PS, where, on page 2, approximately in the middle, it says "because of the size and the progress which was, step by step" -- and now comes the error in the translation. It says "provocation" in our document, whereas in the original it ways "precision (Prezisierung) of the demands to be made in the fields of government which are to be avoided." Ribbentrop helped the independent action on the part of the Sudeten German leaders. As evidence to the contrary. I am referring to a part not yet read of the document PS-3060, from which the contrary can be gathered, namely, that the then foreign minister von Ribbentrop acted against the independent actions of the Sudeten German leaders with the help of his Ambassador in Prague. document? I quote:
"By order of Frank, the then leader of the Sudeten German Party, there was cooperation. Henlein, who has been trying to avoid me lately, has been con tacted and I had discussions with him and Frank and have received the following assurances.
"First, decisive policy and tactical progress of the SDP (Sudeten German Party) must be exclusively the principle laid down by the Ambassador, or the Embassy, with reference to foreign policy. My instructions must be obeyed strictly.
"These directives are given within the framework of the general policy so far as direct interference in Czech foreign policy is concerned, and the policy of the Sudetan German Party, which is to have that avoided." in the Foreign Office in contact with the Sudetan German Party, I shall put questions to von Ribbentrop when he is called as a witness. to the Tribunal for their official recognition. This document is an embassy report of the Czechoslovak Republic from the embassy in Paris. It is concerned with the sense and aim of the mission of Lord Runciman in Prague. It shows the that mission was given him by England for the purpose of gaining time for rearmament. May I read the document?
"Paris, August 5, 1938. Secret. To the Minister.
"Massigly considers the sending of Lord Runciman to Prague a good thing. Anthony Eden said, during a conversation with Ambassador Korby -- the French Ambassador to London -- that after careful reflection the sending of Lord Runciman to Prague meant a good step in the right direction, since he is going to engage England more in Central Europe than has been the case up to now.
"Massigly says that the British know that the war will happen, and they ar using every means at their disposal to delay it. He is perfectly aware that Lord Runciman's mission in Prague is for the purpose of settling that conflict that that is why he went to Czechoslovakia. It is supposed to take place so as to gain time, and Lord Runciman can probably male suggestions which will indicate considerable damage upon Czechoslovakia.
"This judgment of Massigly's is backed by further information which is extremely interesting.
"During the recent grain conference, which took place in London, the British, the Dominions, and the United States and France, had separate discussions of their own. The French delegate had a discussion with Minister of Health Elliot, and Poulson, British Minister for Agriculture, and he also talked to the famous expert, Sir Arthur Hewitt, who was in the Ministry of Agriculture and who had been given a leading task in the Air Ministry.
"From the speeches, the conduct, and attitude at the negotiations of the British, the French delegate gathered the positive impression that the British were interested in organizing grain supplies not so much to prevent the conflict but so as to win the conflict. The ministers Elliot and Poulson are both supposed to believe in the possibility of a conflict. Sir Arthur Strait said that in six months' time British aviation would have been put into order. Consequently, such importance is attributed to the gaining of time on Britain's part, I am quoting that information at this point in connection with Lord Runciman's mission to Prague, because as I said already the question of gaining time is playing a decisive part in the mission Lord Runciman was given in Paris.
"With best greetings, yours sincerely, "Pulsusky."
which Ribbentrop participated. Just how far is something I shall prove when the Defendant is examined as a witness regarding his policy. to the Tribunal as Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 47. That declaration of the Fuehrer and the British Prime Minister Chamberlain of September 30, 1938, was planned to serve the purpose of removing all outstanding difficulties between Germany and England. The reaction to that declaration or pact in Germany and England was different. As evidence for the British reaction I am referring to Exhibit Ribbentrop No. 48, which I am offering to the Tribunal with the request for judicial notice.
This is an extract from the speech of the British Prime Minister Chamberlain in the House of Commons on October 3, 1938. May I quote the following from its first paragraph:
"If there is a lesson which we have been able to learn from the event's of these least weeks, then it is the lesson that a permanent peace cannot be achieved by sitting still and waiting for it. To achieve it we need active and positive efforts. We in this country are prepared and for a long period have occupied ourselves with a long rearmament program, which in its speed and in its size is growing steadily. Nobody must believe that because of the signing of the Munich agreement we can afford it among the four powers to relax our efforts regarding that program at this present time or to weaken." that in its speed and size it is growing steadily, I should like to prove this fact with the exhibit Ribbentrop No. 49. This is a speech of the British Secretary of State of War, Here Belisha, at the Mansion House, London, on October 10, 1938; and I request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the extracts which I am submitting. May I quote a few words from this document:
"Still more must be done so as to give to the territorial army as a unit complete effectiveness."
I am now skipping one paragraph and read the following paragraph, paragraph 5, which says:
"Regarding the formation of new units, these infantry brigades will have three battalions in the future instead of four, as this has laready been the case in the regular army. When using the material available, we gather that nine complete divisions after the pattern of the regular army can be formed. Furthermore, we desire the creation of a considerable number of modern corps and army replacement units--for instance, army field and army surveying units, signal troops, and so on, which in the event of a war can take their place at a moment's notice within the formations. All this is within keeping with the organization of our army." for War. Exhibit Ribbentrop No. 50 deals further with--and I emphasize this--rearmament. This is a speech of Winston Churchill's of October 16, 1938, and I beg to quote extracts from this speech and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. I am only quoting a few sentences; I quote:
"We must rearm. There can be no doubt that we shall rearm. Great Britain must forego its traditions of hundreds of years and introduce general conscription. The British nation will face whatever might come, but, so as to speak with President Wilson, 'The tool of arms as such does not suffice.' We must have the strength of spirit actively behind it. There are people who say that we must not enter upon a theoretical controversy between Naziism and democracy. This controversy exists today, however." and far beyond the normal limitations of the needs of defense, is proved by the Exhibit Ribbentrop No. 51, which I am offering to the Tribunal with the request for judicial notice. This is a declaration of the British Secretary of State for Air, dated November 16, -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, I thought you understood what the Tribunal wanted you to do, which was to put in these documents altogether. I think I have said from 44 -- wasn't it the document that you had got to?-to 300 something, and you could put them in altogether. But now you have gone through 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51, and you seem to be going through each one in detail, doing exactly what I asked you not to do.
Didn't you understand what I said?
DR. HORN: Yes. The way I understood you, Mr. President, was that I may read important parts from them. That is what I did. These are only short extracts.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to find an important passage in each of the three hundred documents?
DR. HORN: No, Mr. President, certainly not; but if I don't read these extracts or can't read them then I would like to ask the Tribunal to accept my whole document book as evidence so that I can refer to it later.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what we intended to do. What we want you to do is to offer into evidence now, stating that you offer from Exhibit 44 up to 300 and whatever the number is, and we will allow you, of course, to refer to them at a later stage when you make your speech; and if there is any passage which the Prosecution object to they can inform you about it beforehand and the matter can then be argued. But what we don't desire to do is to take up the time of the Tribunal by either offering each of those documents by itself, numbered individually, 44, 45 and so on, or that you should read anything except passages which are of especial importance at this moment. After all, you aren't putting forward your whole case new; you are only introducing your evidence.
referring, you have referred to about six, all of them upon British rearmament. That is obviously cumulative, isn't it? Therefore, it can't be that all these are particularly important to you. these documents, if I may use the phrase, in bulk; and we don't desire you to refer to any of them beyond that.
DR. HORN: In that case I am offering 51 -
COLORED POKROVSKY: (Interposing) If I understand rightly, Dr. Horn up to now has not made any conclusions from those directions which were given him time and again by the Tribunal. myself with those translations that are coming from time to time to me. And, by the way, Dr. Horn turned over those documents, not three weeks ago as he said, but considerably later. So far as I could familiarize myself with these documents, I had a whole series of objections. and in particular, absolutely irrelevant to the case of Ribbentrop.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, we have already indicated that we don't wane to deal with questions of admissibility at the moment, because the documents are not before us. I don't understand the purpose of your objections. We haven't got the documents here. How can we tell whether they are admissible or not?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I have an objection in principle. Part of the documents -- I will not quote their contents but merely for illustration will name two or three numbers. persons, such as statements of President Wilson of the United States. I have in mind Document 294, 293, 291, and they are absolutely provocative statements. I have in mind Document Number 286. under the qualification of those directions that were given to him by the Tribunal, and it seems to me that if Dr. Horn will continue reading in the record these documents -
THIS PRESIDENT: (interposing) Colonel Pokrovsky, as I have said, we haven't got these documents before us. You say documents 291, 293, 294, and 286--I don't know even what the documents are. I have never seen them. objections in writing, and then they will be considered by the Tribunal. The documents aren't here. We can't do anything until we see what the documents are. In order to try and get on with this case, we are allowing Dr. Horn to put in the documents in bulk. But your objections now are really simply taking up time and doing no good at all. If you would put in your objections in writing, saying that you object on certain grounds to these documents, that matter would be considered, but we can't consider it without that.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: My objection was dictated by the wish to save time, and is of a very practical order. it--from the moment it is recorded in the transcript this material becomes the property of the press; and it seems to me that it is not within our interests to have a document which is an absolute falsification, known falsification, and the fate of which has not been determined by the Tribunal, that such a document should be turned over to anybody and that it should be made public.
Among the documents which have been presented by Dr. Horn, there are such document. And it is not quite clear to me why these particular documents were delayed in translation, why those documents were turned over for translation later than others. And on the basis of this consideration I considered it was my duty to address the Tribunal, and I think that the Tribunal will consider the reason for my objections.
THE PRESIDENT: I follow what you mean now with reference to documents being communicated to the press, and steps ought to be taken on that. The Tribunal will rule now that documents, upon the admissibility of which the Tribunal has not ruled, are not to be given to the press. I believe there have been some infractions of that in the past, but that is the Tribunal's ruling, that documents should not be given to the press until they have been admitted in evidence before this Courts
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I ought perhaps to add that the Tribunal are not in complete control of this matter. It is for the Prosecution to see, and also possibly for the Defense, that documents should not be given to the press until they have been admitted in evidence here.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Up to now the order was such that if the document is named in the transcript , then it becomes public property. Up to now there was such practice.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if I could help on that practical point. It is one which has given us a little concern. been given some 24 hours before they are produced in Court, on the understanding which has been practically entirely, completely, complied with, that the press would not publish it until the document is put in evidence. And, my Lord, I amsure that if the Tribunal expressed the wish that where any objections are taken to a document and the Tribunal reserves the question of admissibility, the press would, in the spirit with which they have complied with the previous practice, comply at once with the Tribunal's desire and not publish it in these circumstances. I think that in practice that would solve the difficulty which Your Lordship has just mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The only thing is, of course, that we are now dealing with a very large number of documents which Dr. Horn wants to submit, and, as you have heard, for purposes of trying to save time to have asked him to submit these documents in bulk.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And of course it is very difficult, if not impossible, for members of the Prosecution to make their objections to documents when they are offered in bulk in that way. Therefore, I think the most convenient course would probably be if as soon as the translations of thos documents have been made, if the Prosecution could indicate any objections they have to them and the Tribunal would consider them. Then after the order of the Tribunal has been made upon them, they should then be made available to the press.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I respectfully and entirely agree. My Lord, the prosecutors did confer. Of course the only material that they had to confer upon was the short description of the document in Document Book 1, and on that it appeared to all of us that there were a number of documents which might be and probably were objectionable. But, clearly, from our point of view it would be much more satisfactory if we had the opportunity of seeing the actual document in translation, and then we should gladly comply with what your Lordship has suggested, namely, that we will make the objections to such of those as we think are objectionable in writing and let the Tribunal have it.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, a good many of them, I believe, are in English, and you could let us have your objections as soon as possible. Perhaps the press would act in accordance with our wishes and not make public those documents to which objections are taken -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: -- until we have ruled upon them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will make our objections as soon as we have had the opportunity of reading the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HORN: May I, Mr. President, state that none of my material has been handed to the press and may I also state that by an order of the Tribunal earlier, that part ms to be translated only which was considered relevant by the prosecution; because of that ruling, as far as the objection of Colonel Pokrovsky regarding the value of the document is concerned, it is not quite understandable to me. I don't believe that the prosecution, on the strength of that ruling, would translate anything which, as Colonel Pokrovsky emphasized, would be regarded as "dirty" regarding its contents. I think that would have been objected to by the prosecution at the beginning and the danger hardly arises that any such translation or originals could reach the press.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen the documents, so I can't say, but if you would continue in accordance with the scheme that I have suggested to you, I think that would be the best course for you to take.
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President. May I submit the documents referring to British rearmament, as far as arms and economy is concerned, which also concerned the cooperation between Britain and France at the same time? These are the documents 51 to 62 in my document book, and may I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of these documents,
THE PRESIDENT: That is 51 to 62?
DR. HORN: 51 to 62, my Lord. I am now coming to the Czechoslovakian problem. As evidence for this and the fact that Slovakia requested, on its part, to be taken under German protection, I am putting in document No.63, Ribbentrop No. 63, 64 and 75, which I submit to the Tribunal with the request that they take judicial notice of them. Furthermore, as far as this problem is concerned, I shall examine the defendant Ribbentrop when he takes the stand and, as far as is necessary, I shall ask him regarding these individual documents; and now, I am coming to the documents 66 to 69, which I am submitting to the Tribunal for their judicial notice. They contain statements regarding the reaction in Britain to the occupation of the Czech country in 1939 by Germany. Regarding details and how the creation of the protectorate came about, I shall examine the defendant Ribbentrop and also regarding the individual documents.
referring to article 99 of the Versailles Treaty and which refer to the international legal position of the Memelcountry. These are documents Nos. 70 and 71 of my document book. of evidence, I had timed myself not to proceed any further today than to that document, I beg your Lordship for permission to submit the further documents to the Tribunal tomorrow. Up to now, on the strength of the existing practice, I had expected to read part of the documents and a brief and I had not expected to get any further today than that document.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, why don't you put them all in now. You say you have an index of them. All you have to say is that you offer in evidence the documents from 71 to 300 and something and then they go in, and then if the prosecution should take an objection to them, of course, you can be heard upon the question of the objection.
DR. HORN: May I have your permission to confer with my colleagues for one moment and see how much material he has, so that I can offer these documents to the Tribunal. May I ask your Lordship -- I gather from the ruling of the Tribunal that submission of evidence here is not to take place but merely presentation of exhibits, quite apart from their contents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, presumably when these documents are submitted for translation which, I understand, you say you have done but at any rate, if you haven't done it, you will be doing it; you will mark the passages upon which you rely, which is what we desired you to do. You described all these documents by numbers and gave them exhibit numbers in your document book and all we want you to do now is to offer them in evidence and then the prosecution, when they have been translated, will have the opportunity of objecting to them on the ground of their being cumulative or of their being inadmissible for some other reasons and, if necessary, you will be heard upon that. All we want you to do now is to get on. What difficulty there can be in submitting these documents, all of which you have indexed in your document book, the Tribunal is quite unable to see.
DR. HORN: Until now, it was the ruling of the Tribunal that we, during our case, were not only allowed to submit documents but also present them, read them with a connecting text so as to indicate the attitude of the defense.
Just recently, Mr. Justice Jackson suggested that on the other hand, one could submit all documents together and that subsequently, the prosecution could raise objections to the individual documents without there being a presentation. That suggestion, on the strength of representations which were made by Dr. Dix, was turned down by the Tribunal and the Tribunal intended to continue the established procedure; namely, that of submitting the documents together with an inter-connecting text. Now, we seem to come to a complete departure from those proceedings; namely, by submitting all the documents to the Tribunal for judicial notice, and all together, and that seems such a complete departure from the established procedure that one has to regroup all these documents so as to submit them to the Tribunal in their proper order. Up to now, we had planned to read at least some of their contents.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not aware of any order of the Tribunal which refers to an inter-connecting text. We did not rule that you should not be allowed to read any passage from the documents but what we did rule was that we wished the documents to be presented and put in evidence and that the passages upon which you relied should be marked and that the prosecution should, if they wished, to object to them as being so irrelevant that they needn't be translated, that they should do so, and that the Tribunal should rule if there was a conflict upon that. Dr. Horn, of course, you can put any documents to your witnesses in the course of their examination and ask them to explain it. It isn't as though as you are confined to this presentation of the documents in bulk.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I add just another word. This matter appears to be yet another principal, important question, and I do not wish to prejudice my colleagues. I should like to have an opportunity to confer with them about it. This is a principal departure from the established procedure which the Defense had been allowed. I wouldn't like to take it upon myself to alter these matters of my own initiative and thus commit my colleagues. I hope that your Lordship will understand that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, the only material order which the Tribunal has made, as far as I am aware, is this: It is the order of the 4th of February 1946, 2 (a):
"During the presentation of a defendant's case, the defendant's counsel will read documents, will question witnesses, and will make such brief comments on the evidence as are necessary to insure a proper understanding of it."
DR. HORN: Mr. President, the only way we could understand that ruling was that we were granted roughly the same procedure as the Prosecution. After all, it is one of the fundamental principles of any trial that prosecution and defense have certain equality of rights. documents refer to a certain definite problem, they will be submitted to the Tribunal as a group. We nevertheless reserve the right to make such comment upon their contents as is necessary to understand the whole context. This possibility would be taken away from us if we had now to submit the entire evidence all together without being able to make any statements connected therewith. We can't comment on a document individually if we submit ten documents for one certain group of problems or questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, the Tribunal will adjourn now for a few minutes to consider this question,and will return in a short time and announce their decision so that you can prepare yourself for tomorrow on the lines which they wish.
DR. DIX: Before the Tribunal retires, may I ask a question. As far as I understood the proceedings so far, the difficulties were due to the fact that because of the non-existence of Russian and French translations some of the delegations and prosecutions could not enter into deciding whether or not they wished to object.
On the other hand, the Tribunal is anxious to avoid quotations being read here with reference to which it has not yet been decided whether or not the Prosecution propose to object. That situation appeared to me the external cause of the present difficulties. was not that he thought that the decision announced and adopted in the proceedings so far was that important parts of documents we were presenting, provided they were recognized as important or relevant, could not be read. I think the impression that they can be read is still correct and that you are not making any exceptions now. Therefore, no principal new decision is to be made here at all now, but an attempt is merely being made to find a temporary solution regarding the bridging of the difficulties arising because Dr. Horn can't read any individual quotations from his documents at the moment because the Tribunal is not yet in a position to judge their relevance, since, in turn, the Tribunal does not yet know the attitude of the Prosecution. subject for cur discussion: Is this conception of mine correct? Is this merely a question of finding a temporary solution whereby the principal right of the defense, namely that of using connecting texts between the documents -- in other words, words without which the documents could not be understood -- can be used, and relevant parts can be read, and this is to be adhered to and we are now merely concerned with the technical question which is also temporary? conception of mind regarding the nature of these difficulties is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now and we will return into Court very shortly and we will consider what you have said.
(A recess was taken.)