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.)
THE PRESIDENT: On the 22nd of March, 1946, the Tribunal made this ruling, repeating a ruling of the 8th of March, 1946.
"To avoid unnecessary translations Defense Counsel shall indicate to the Prosecution the exact passages in all documents which they propose to use in order that the Prosecution may have an opportunity to object to irrelevant passages.
"In the event of disagreement between the Prosecution and the Defense as to the relevancy of any particular passage, the Tribunal will decide what passages are sufficiently relevant to be translated. Only the cited passages need be translated unless the Prosecution will require translation of the entire document." carried out and therefore certainly the Tribunal has not got the translations and they understand that the Prosecution have not got, at any rate, all the translations and the difficulty which has arisen the Tribunal think is in part, at any rate, due to that fact. 22nd of March, 1946, said this:
"In considering the matters which have been raised this morning the Tribunal has had in mind the necessity for a fair trial and at the same time for an expeditious trial, and the Tribunal has decided that for the present it will proceed under rules heretofore announced, that is to say:
"First, documents translated into the four languages may be introduced without being read but in introducing them Counsel may summarize them or otherwise call their relevance to the attention of the Court and may read such brief passages as are strictly relevant and are deemed important.
"Second, when a document is offered the Tribunal will hear any objections that may be offered to it." 8th of March, which deals with translations. the Tribunal or of all the Prosecutors, it has been impossible for the Prosecutors to make their objections and impossible for the Tribunal to rule upon the admissibility of the documents. Therefore, it is natural that the Prosecution have objected to the Defense reading from documents which they had not seen.
Dr. Horn's will be ready tomorrow. They hope, therefore, that the order which I have just read will be able to be carried out tomorrow, and they propose for the present, and if the order is reasonably and fairly carried out by Defense Counsel, to adhere to it. They would draw the attention of the defendants' counsel again to the first paragraph of the order and would remind them that they must adhere strictly to that order. The documents having been translated into the four languages may be introduced without being read but in introducing them counsel may summarize them or otherwise call their relevance to the attention of the Court and may read such brief passages as are strictly relevant and are deemed important. In that connection I would add and are not cumulative. particular defendants' case, three or four hundred documents read to them and commented upon and argued and therefore it is absolutely essential in the opinion of the Tribunal that counsel must summarize briefly and indicate the relevance of the documents briefly and only read such passages as are really strictly relevant and are not cumulative. will adhere strictly to it themselves, and they think if Dr. Horn will state, after offering the documents either in one complete bulk or in a group or in groups, the relevancy of each group and confine himself to the reading of only passages which are really necessary to be read in order to understand the documents, that will be satisfactory to them. But they cannot sit here to hear either each of those documents offered in evidence by its number or to hear a short speech or even a long speech about the relevancy of each of the documents or to hear passages read from each of those documents. The number of documents is very great and it is impossible for the Tribunal to carry on an expeditious trial unless the rule which they have laid down is interpreted in the way in which I have indicated.
this rule was expressly made for the present and unless it is worked by the Defense Counsel in a reasonable way the rule will be altered.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 28 March, 1946, at 1000 hours).
Military Tribunal in the matter of: The
DR. HORN: In accordance with the order of the Tribunal, I am now presenting documents not yet named and in groups and in the following order:
First of all, I am turning to the Polish complex of questions. In my document book, under Exhibit Ribbentrop No. 200, you will find a document which I am submitting to the Tribunal for judicial notice. In that document, Prime Minister Chamberlain, in a letter to Hitler dated August 22, 1939, is defining his attitude regarding the conflict existing between Germany and Poland. In this connection, he is emphasizing as one of the main causes of the difficultie the question of minorities. As evidence of the fact that this minority played an important part as early as the creation of the Polish State, I am drawing your attention to the document Exhibit Ribbentrop 72, which I am offering to the Tribunal for judicial notice. These are comments from the German delegation regarding the peace conditions.
A further document, Ribbentrop Exhibit No. 74, which I am submitting to the Tribunal for judicial notice, underlines once more the point of view of the President of the Allied Council, Clemenceau, about which he is writing to the Polish Prime Minister Paderewski.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I want to explain the position of the Prosecution. position that we have only been able to make tentative selection of those to which we object. I only want to make it clear that we are admitting, without protest, the course taken by Dr. Horn on the basis which your Lordship announced yesterday, that he is putting them in en bloc subject to our right t object formally when we have the documents.
have arranged, and all my colleagues agree, that there should be objections to a number of these documents on our present state of knowledge.
DR. HORN: May I ask your Lordship to listen for one moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to say something? Were you going to add something to what Sir David had said?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, with regard to the objection just raised by the Prosecution, may I ask that the Tribunal make a principle decision regarding just how far the Defense must suffer from difficulties arising from technical set-backs, and I think a decision should be made that on the strength of the restricted case which we can only present, our evidence is not further restricted and it is made possible for us to present our material without having to argue principle points with the Prosecution here before the Tribunal. shrotened form, as designed by the Tribunal yesterday, be postponed until the document books are available here in court.
THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty seems entirely to arisefrom the fact that your document books are not ready. That is what causes the difficulty. If the document books had been ready and had been submitted to the Prosecution, the Prosecution would be in a position to object to them. That is the reason why Sir David is objecting in this provisional form. But if you have witnesses whom you are going to call why do you not call them whilst your books are being got ready? That seems to the Tribunal to be the obvious course. later stage when we can see them. That is the only reasonable course and why you do not adopt it I do not know.
DR. HORN: The translation department informed me recently, through one of their officers, that he would not be in a position, with the present personnel at his disposal, to catch up with translations. That is the cause of the difficulties but that is outside my sphere of influence. I have submitted the documents in good time for translation.
THE PRESIDENT: That was not the point I was dealing with. Perhaps the translations did not come through correctly. why do you not call them now?
DR. HORN: I intended to call the witnesses in the course of my presentation of documents and in accordance with the questions to which witnesses could make statements.
THE PRESIDENT: No doubt you had but as your documents are not here to be presented to the Court then you must get on and the only way to get on with your case is to call your witnesses.
DR. HORN: In that case may I request a recess for five minutes so that I may have a short conversation with a woman witness and then I shall call her?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. Wait one moment.
Yes, Mr. Dodd?
MR. DODD: If your Honor please, I would not begrudge any counsel five minutes.
This woman witness has been here for a long time. She stood outside all day yesterday. I think Mr. Horn has talked to her before. He has had ample opportunity to confer with her. He knew he was going to call her; he asked this Court for permission to call her. I think we are faced here with almost a one man filibuster at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that the witness must be called at once.
DR. HORN: In that case I wish to have Miss Blank called as a witness.
MARGARETE BLANK, Called as a witness, testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you tell me your name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(Witness repeated the oath).
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down if you wish. BY DR. HORN:
Q Since when do you know Herr von Ribbentrop? at the beginning of 1934 in Berlin. Ribbentrop?
A November 1, 1934, I became a secretary in his office. His personal secretary gave notice and a successor did not suit so von Ribbentrop asked me whether I was willing to occupy her position. I said, "yes" and became his personal secretary on February 1, 1935.
Q What was the attitude of von Ribbentrop towards Hitler? for Adolf Hitler. To have the Fuehrer's confidence was the greatest satisfaction to him and that confidence he wished to justify by his attitude and his work.
He devoted himself to that with the greatest passion. To achieve this aim no trouble was too great for him. ruthless and without regard. Towards his subordinates he always mentioned Hitler in the terms of greatest admiration. Recognition given him by the Fuehrer, as for instance the Golden Party Emblem in recognition of his merits during a speech before the Reichstag, as well as a letter for his fiftieth birthday full of recognition and praise, meant to him, Ribbentrop, the greatest reward for his devotion.
Q It is true that Ribbentrop adhered to Hitler's views and subordinated his own when he was of a different opinion himself? Ribbentrop and the Fuehrer, Ribbentrop would subordinate his own opinion to that of the Fuehrer. afterwards. Ribbentrop towards his subordinates presented the views of the Fuehrer as if they were his own. A wish from the Fuehrer was equivalent to a military order in all cases.
Q To what views do you attribute that attitude?
A I attribute it first of all to Ribbentrop's views according to which the Fuehrer was the only person capable of making political decisions.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, will you observe the lights? When the yellow light goes on it means that you are speaking too fast. When the red light is on it means that you must stop altogether. Will you follow that?
THE WITNESS: Yes indeed.
A (Continued) I attribute that to Ribbentrop's attitude that the Fuehrer was the only person capable of making political decisions. officer and as the son of an officer, and because of the oath of allegiance he had taken to the Fuehrer, considered as a soldier he had to carry out orders given him, which he could not change or criticize. repeatedly to resign?
A Yes, that had happened several times. But regarding such extremely personal matters Ribbentrop did not talk with his subordinates in detail. I only remember his application to resign of the year 1941. That application, like several later ones, was submitted in a personal letter. The cause for that resignation were differences as to competency jurisdiction of other departments who had infringed on the spheres of the Foreign Office and so Ribbentrop did not believe he could take responsibility for the Reich's foreign policy.
Q Whatwas the result of these applications?
Q During Ribbentrop's activities as Ambassador to England were you with him? between Germany and England?
A Yes. For that reason, during the summer of 1938, the Fuehrer sent Ribbentrop to England. The fleet agreement of 1935 had only been the beginning. Later on an air pact was planned and for reasons which I do not \ know about was not concluded. theory of balance in Europe? opinion that England was still adhering to the traditional policy of balance. His conception here was opposed to that of the Fuehrer, who was of the opinion that due to the Russian development in the east a factor had arisen which necessitated a revision of the old policy of balance, in other words, that there was an alien interest to a growing Germany. Ribbentrop's views meant in connection with the Polish crisis that he expected the British guarantee to Poland to become effective.