I am submitting this document under the number USSR 406. You must remember this telegram.
A. To whom is it addressed? It doesn't say here.
Q. To the German Ambassador in Tokio.
A. Oh, yes, I see; Tokio.
Q. Apparently you remember it. I should like you to pay attention to the words which are found on page 4 at the end of this document. They are underlined, I am told, to make it clear. I shall read it into the record.
A. which part are you referring to? Is it the last part?
Q. It is on the last page, the fourth page of the document. It is underlined.
A. Yes, I have found it.
Q. I am going to quote it:
"I request you by all means in your possession to have your influence on Matsuoka so that Japan will declare war on Russia as soon as possible; the sooner it will happen the better it will be. The final aim should remain always in the future, the fact that Japan and we, before the coming of winter, will have our hands together on the Siberian frontier. The crash will be so great that the question of the crash of England or complete annihilation of the British Isles will be only a question of time." Do you find this place?
A. Yes, I have got it.
Q. Is this one of your efforts regarding the localization of war?
A. I didn't understand that last question?
Q. I am saying, is this one of your efforts regarding localization of war?
A. The war against Russia had started, and I tried -- and the Fuehrer was of the same view -- to get Japan into the war with us so that the war against Russia would finish as soon as possible. That was the sense of that telegram.
Q. This was not only the position of the Fuehrer, but it was also your policy as minister of foreign affairs at the time?
A. Yes; yes.
Q. I have a few more questions. You state that never did you hear anything regarding the cruelties which took place in concentration camps?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. During the war you, as minister of foreign affairs, took cognizance of and read foreign newspapers. Did you know that the foreign press contained various information on that matter?
A. No, that only applies up to a point. I had to read so much and to work so much every day that I only read such foreign political news in the foreign press as had been handed to me. Thus, during the whole war I never read news coming from abroad which referred to concentration camps, until one day the Soviet Russian armies captured the camp at Maidanek in Poland. On that occasion news came from our embassy and I had press news put before me. All that has been discussed here. I took those newspapers to the Fuehrer. Before that I knew nothing at all about atrocities or any measures in concentration camps.
Q. Did you know about the notes of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union regarding the cruelties and inhumanities committed by the German fascists in the temporarily occupied territories of the Soviet Union upon the population of the Soviet Union, and regarding pillages and so forth?
A. That note reached me, I think, through diplomatic channels, but I can't remember it just now. It may be that it came through news agencies. However, I do remember that there were several notes at the time, and I remember one of them, which I had submitted to the Fuehrer. But since the beginning of the German-Russian war we could not carry out any actions in those territories, and we exercised no influence. Therefore, I am not in any way informed about the details.
Q. I was primarily interested in the basic fact that you were aware of the notes of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union. Tell me, please, do you knows that millions of citizens were deported into slavery to Germany?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. Is it possible that you don't know it? And these citizens who were it. Germany and were used as slaves - you are not aware of that either?
A. No, According to what I heard, all these foreign workers are supposed to have been treated well in Germany. That other things happened too, that I consider possible, but, on the whole, I think a lot was done to treat these workers well. I know that on certain occasions departments of the Foreign Office worked in this direction so as to stop any unpleasant things, but on the whole we had no influence in that sphere, since we had been excluded from Eastern questions.
Q. Why were you sufficiently informed that foreign laborers were treated well, and were not informed regarding the fact that they were treated as slaves? Why is that?
A. I don't think that this applies. We in the Foreign Office did help French and Soviet workers by getting artists from France, for instance. We advised on questions of their welfare, and I know that the German Workers Front did everything, so that as to the sector which we could look into, the workers were treated very well and their leisure time was locked after fairly well.
At least, that was where we cooperated.
Q. Very well. Here is a penultimate group of questions in connection with the activity of the Ribbentrop Battalion. I now ask you to read, the testimony of 88 Oberstrumbannfuehrer Norman Paul Foerster. This document is submitted under number USSR-445. Please pay attention to page 3 of this testimony of Foerster; it in underlined there. It is stated there:
"In August of 1941 I arrived at the designated address in the term of Berlin and learned that I was ordered to Sonderkommando SS of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In this command there were about 80 to 100, and later there were 300 or 400 personnel. Later the name of Sonderkommando was changed to Battalion, a special battalion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
"I was received by the Baron von Kuensberg in the building of the Ministry of Foreign Affaire, whore the Sonderkommander were quartered. He explained to me that the Sonderkommando was created in accordance with directives of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, von Ribbentrop. 'According to the directives of von Ribbentrop' said Kuensberg, 'our Sonderkommander must go to the occupied territories, together with the forward sections of the army, In order to preserve the cultural centers - such as museums, scientific institutions, galleries of paintings, and so forth - from annihilation or possible destruction by the German soldiers, in order that all these treasures should be taken out to Germany later."
Here I skip a few lines, and then: Lieben, Kralling. Ratterson, and others, von Kuensberg stated orally an order of Ribbentrop regarding, two towns in Russia, specifically old scientific institutions, libraries, and palaces, to look at the archives and to take out everything that has any definite value."
Did you find that in the document?
A. Yes.
Q. I should like you to reply to the following question of mine. You know that such a battalion existed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and that in accordance with your directives, it was especially occupied -- as is stated in this document -- in the preservation of cultural treasures.
I should like you to reply to this question.
A. It is quite incorrect, the way it is put in this document. I can't recognize it, and I have to object to it. what is correct is the following: appointed long before the campaign so as to collect important documents in France which could have been of interest to us, and confiscate them. that no unnecessary destruction of objects of art should take place. Any order to have these things transported to Germany, or to rob, he certainly did not have from me under any circumstances. I don't know just how this statement can about, but under no circumstances is it correct.
Q. Well, you are against many of the documents which have been submitted here. This doesn't mean that the document isn't correct, but I am not going to quote this document further. ing to the defendant Rosenberg. It has already been submitted to the Tri bunal under number PS-85. I shall quote here paragraph 2 of the document. It has already been submitted, so I will just read it into the record. This letter was addressed, by Goering, to Rosenberg. He said there:
"After lengthy search, I very much welcomed it when finally a place was selected for the collection. I must state also, however, that other instances were referred to in directives of the Fuehrer. For instance, first of all, there is reference to the Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs, who directed, several months ago, a circular to all the organizations where, amongst other things, he stated that full powers were given to him for the preservation of art treasures and cultural treasures in the occupied territories." ing this. Do you recall this letter exactly?
A. I don't know how this letter from Reichsmarshal Goering came about, but if any authorities are mentioned in it, then this could only concern the fact that these art treasures were secured in these territories.
We in the Foreign Office, as I have stated here, did not appropriate any art treasures for our department or my person. It is possible that these art treasures were secured temporarily, but none of them became our Apr-2-A-RT-16-1a property.
Therefore, it can only be misunderstanding in this letter because as I remember exactly, this concerned the securing of these art treasures. In France, for instance, the situation had arisen where flats and museums were robbed, and I even renumber that I asked the armed forces to furnish guards so that those art treasures could be watched. At any rate, we in the foreign Office, for ourselves, never saw any of them. I should like here to put another question in this connection. Do you took that under the term "the preservation of art treasures" was meant, in reality the pillaging of art treasures of the occupied territories? to anybody, I should like to state that empatically. many men on his staff, I gave him an order immediately that his whole staff-which wasn't a battalion, as was said here-should be dissolved immediatly. and I even think I sacked him from the Foreign Office, I remember, because he didn't do what I told him to. I think he was suspended from duty. of February 1938 on. Your arrival to this post came in the period in the beginning, when Hitler undertook a series of acts of Foreign policy which finally led to the world war. There arises the question of why Hitler appointee. you as Minister of Foreign Affairs just before the realization of a wide program of aggression. Don't you think that he thought you were the most suitable man for this post, with whom he could have no differences on any of the important questions?
A I can't tell you anything about Adolp Hitler's thoughts He didn't tell me about them. He knew that I was a faithfull servant of his, and he know that I had the view that a strong Germany was necessary. He also know that I wanted to carry through, through diplomatic and peaceful channels. What other intentions the Fuehrer may have had, or what ideas he may have had, that I don't know.
Q Here is the last question. How can you explain the fact that even now, when before you in all its forms has developed the picture of the bloody crimes of the Hitler regime, when you took full cognizance of it and understood the Apr-2-A-RT-16-2a Hitlerite policy which led you to the defendant's bench-- how is it possible to explain that you still think that this regime was right, and you furthermore state that the leading criminal clique was, in reality, only a group of idealists?
How can you explain that to us?
THE PRESIDENT: That seems to be a number of questions in one, and I don't think it is a proper question to put to the witness.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I thought that this was only one question. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q Will you answer please, defendant von Ribbentrop?
THE PRESIDENT: I told you, General Rudenko, that the Tribunal does not think it a proper question to put.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr Horn, do you want to re-examine?
Dr. HORN: I have to further questions to put to the witness, Mr.President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the defendant can return to his seat in the dock.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn, I understand that you are going to deal with your documents, are you not?
DR. HORN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I see the time; we might perhaps adjourn for ten minutes now (A recess was taken). MR BARRINGTON:
I will pass on to the second group, which are numbers 48 to 62 inclusive, and those are all on the subject of allied rearmament and alleged warlike intentions before the outbreak of war.
No. 54 appears to be missing from my book, and I don't know whether it was intentionally left out. irrelevant. They are in Book 3, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Fifty-nine is different, isn't it? Fifty-nine is dealing with the speech by Sir Malcolm MacDonald about the colonies.
MR. BARRINGTON: Yes. That is not exactly rearmament, but of course it is on the same theme in a way, that it is a provocation to war. It is certainly in rather a different category from the others.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. BARRINGTON: The third group deals with Poland, and that is avery large group because it includes all the negotiations before theoutbreak of the war, and the numbers involved in that group are 74 to 214. two phases, The first one would be the questions of the minorities and Lanzig and the Corridor, and the incidents connected with them, and the second phase-slightly overlapping in time, but roughly it follows after the other one- would be the diplomatic events involving other countries than Poland, that is to say, very approximately from the 15th of March 1939 onwards. The first phase of that group would be numbers 74 to 181, and the second phase 182 to 214.
Now, in regard to the first phase, there are two points. The Prosecution says that these are, with very few exceptions, irrelevant because they treat of incidents, and the problems arising out of these minority questions, and the Prosecution says those are irrelevant for two reasons. One of the documents among them consists of an exchange of notes between the German and Polish governments on the 29th of April 1939. That is TC-72, No. 14, in Book 5. That exchange of notes consists of a confirmation that both parties unconditionally renounce the use of force on the basis of the Kellogg Pact. That had been done previously on the 26th of January 1934, as appears in another document here. It is on page 2 of my note, TC-21.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the date ox TC-72.
MR. BARRINGTON: TC-72 No. 14 was the 28th of April 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. BARRINGTON: And on the footing that the two countries unconditionally renounced the use of force on the basis of the Kellogg Pact, added to the fact that the defendant Ribbentrop has himself said that during 1938 Germany was on very good terms with Poland, and that also there was a declaration made by Germany and Poland on the 5th of November 1937 about minorities-that is No. 123 in this list of document; it occurs at the top of page 4 in the notes-in view of those things, the Prosecution says that accounts and reports of these incidents and minority problems are irrelevant and very old history,
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle) (Interposing): You have them all cumulative starting with 76. Well, I am afraid I must say, Your Honor, this was originally got out purely as a working note, and that is rather an error. It should be irrelevant on account, of TC-21.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. BARRINGTON: My Lord, I was going to say that perhaps I might anticipate an objection that Dr. Horn has been good enough to tell me that he will make to this, that yesterday he contended that certain incidents before Munich had been condoned by the Munich Agreement, and that the argument I have just put up is on the same lines as that which the Tribunal turned down yesterday. was negotiated in ignorance of the Fall Gruen, and that from the point of view of condoning previous incidents, it is not in the same footing as an agreement negotiated in full knowledge of the circumstances. Prosecution would suggest, looking at the middle column on page 2, allowing No. 75, which is the Polish Treaty of 1919, and TC-21, which I have already mentioned, which reaffirmed the Kellogg Pact, and No. 123, and TC-72, No. 14 16 which I have already mentioned. The remainder, perhaps, might all be said to be irrelevant, but it would be reasonable, perhaps, to allow Nos.
117, 149, 150, 153, 154, 159, 160, 163, and TC-72, No. 18. Those were largely discussions between ambassadors and heads of state which may have rather more importance than the other documents in this particular group.
just mentioned are in.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. That leads them up to 182.
MR. BARRINGTON: That goes up to 182. Starting now at 182, and the first five, 182 to 186 -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing): Why do you object to 155 which is the calling out of Polish reserves, 155 to 158?
MR. BARRINGTON: Well, my Lord, the objection to that was simply based on the fact that -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) I think they are all mentioned in the conversation which is 159, and that is probably the reason.
MR. BARRINGTON: Yes. I am obliged, Your Lordship. I think that it is so, but I don't think the objection to them could be very strong.
THE PRESIDENT: No.
MR. BARRINGTON: Nos. 182 to 186, My Lord, are reports by the German charge d'affairs in various capitals, and the Prosecution say that those would not be proper evidence .
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Why not?
MR. BARRINGTON: Well, they are just accounts of the German charge d'affairs observations, and conclusions of fact, for the most part by him, transmitted, to his foreign office.
MR. BIDDLE: Do you mean they are irrelevant on the ground of hearsay?
MR. BARRINGTON: I beg your pardon.
MR. BIDDLE: Because they are hearsay they shouldn't be admitted, is that what you mean?
MR. BARRINGTON: Well, they are, of course, partly hearsay. They are also vague, and again, they are transmitted with an object in view. At least that has been the submission of the Prosecution, that they are transmitted to color the picture from the German point of view.
MR. BIDDLE: Would you admit these if they were made by charge d'affairs of other states.
MR. BIDDLE:: Yes.
MR. BARRINGTON: Well, it would be different if they were put in as government reports under the charter, but they are not really admissible if they are German documents.
MR. BIDDLE: I am sorry; I don't know what you mean.
MR. BARRINGTON: Well, Article 21 of the Charter -
MR. BIDDLE: I'm sorry. Perhaps I don't make myself clear. I don't quite understand why these are different from any other official reports made by charge d'affairs of any country. Is it because they are German reports ?
MR. BARRINGTON: Because they are German reports.
MR. BIDDLE: Oh, I see. In other words, you think German reports should be excluded.
MR. BARRINGION: I think under the Charter they should be excluded except, of course, if they are used by the Prosecution as admissions against the German Government itself.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal wish me to announce that the Tribunal will not sit on Good Friday or the Saturday afterwards nor on Easter Monday.
MR. BARRINGTON: May it please the Tribunal, I am speaking for all the four prosecutors, to put the prosecution's comments on the document books which the defendant Ribbentrop has put in. I am speaking for all the four prosecutors, with one exception, that the French Chief Prosecutor wishes to speak on two particular groups of documents which are of especial interest to the French Delegation, I think, if it is convenient to the Tribunal, I might put the whole of the prosecution's position before Dr. Horn puts his answer if
THE PRESIDENT: Do you agree, Dr. Horn, that he might put his view first? Is it agreable to you that Mr. Barrington should put his position first?
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President.
MR. BARRINGTON: There are in all nine books in the English version and the last two have only been received today, so, as they contain perhaps about 350 documents, I regret that I have not been able to agree on the, list with Dr. Horn himself, although I have acquainted him with the comments that the prosecution propose to make. in open court on the 27th of March by Dr. Horn, and I take it your Lordship doesn't want them gone into again.
THE PRESIDENT: No.
MR. BARRINGTON: So that simply leaves books 3 to 9, and I have made out a working note of which I have copies. I don't know whether the members of the Tribunal have them.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we have those copies.
MR. BARRINGTON: Oh, yes; your Lordship will see that on the left column of the document which the prosecution would object to, and in the middle column are those that they would allow, and there are remarks on the righthand side.
Although this doesn't show it, I have, for convenience, divided these documents up into nine groups and so I think I needn't go through all the documents in detail unless there is any particular question on anyone of them.
remarks, that the prosecution takes the position that the German White Books which figure very largely in this list, White Books issued by the government of the Nazi conspirators, cannot be regarded as evidence of facts stated therein; and secondly, that there are amongst these documents, a considerable number which are only discussions of subjects in a very vague and tentative stage and a great many of them, in the prosecution's view, are cumulative. Czechoslovakia and if you will look at the note that I have handed up, that consists of the first few documents down to 45 -- I beg your Lordship's pardon. That is wrong. From after 45, there are six PS documents which are already exhibits and there are 46 and 47 and over the page there are 7 more on Czechoslovakia, and the prosecution's position on those is that the six PS documents are allowed and 46 and 47 and over the page 66, 67, and 69 are objected to purely on the ground that they are cumulative-- No, cumulative, I think, of number 68.
THE PRESIDENT: Which volume are they in, 66 and 69?
MR. BARRINGTON: In volume 3, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: As they have already been translated does it make much difference if there are objections that they are cumulative?
MR. BARRINGTON: There isn't any difference, my Lord, except if they are going to be read into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: They have all been translated?
MR. BARRINGTON: They have all been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: And in the other languages, too?
MR. BARRINGTON: I understand, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: So they need not be read into the record.
MR. BARRINGTON: If your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the rule, isn't it, that if they have been translated into the four languages, they need not be read into the record.
MR. BARRINGTON: That would apply to all the documents in all these nine books now because they all have been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it would, but there may be other objections to the documents besides their being cumulative.
MR. BARRINGTON: They will be, according to the prosecution's submission, a very large number are cumulative in toto.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be a very large number?
MR. BARRINGTON; Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the point was that being translated, they are there already.
MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. BARRINGTON: That is the only point the prosecution has against those. The thing is, my lord, the prosecution say they are cumulative. Of course, Dr. Horn might not think so and perhaps he would welcome a ruling as to whether or not they should be used.
THE PRESIDENT: No. What I was suggesting to you was, that if the only objection to them was that they were cumulative, whey may just as well go in, be put into evidence, because they have already been translated--it saves time--than to have them all argued.
MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, my Lord, unless Dr. Horn prefers to read any of these documents and refer to them specifically.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you mean that he might read them all and then -
MR. BARRINGTON: I don't know what your Lordship is going to allow him to do, I understood perhaps he was going to read some of them.
THE PRESIDENT: Presumably if he reads many that are cumulative, we shall stop him.
THE PRESIDENT: We are going to hear you in a moment, Dr. Horn.
Anyhow, Mr. Barrington, your objection to 182 to 214 is that it is self-serving evidence and therefore not admissible; is that it?
MR. BARRINGTON: That is right, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to them?
MR. BARRINGTON: Well, they are, as I said, conclusions of fact drawn by an observer in a foreign country. They do rather tend to get rather vague.
THE PRESIDENT: That might apply to a great deal of the evidence.
MR. BARRINGTON: Numbers 187 to 192 and TC 77 there is no objection to. mere conclusions, internal to the German Foreign Office. 193 is a memorandum of the State Secretary of the Foreign Office. It deals with a visit to him of the French Ambassador. And Number 193 is similar, a visit of a British Ambassador.
One hundred and ninety-five is Sir Nevile Henderson's "White Paper", "Failure of a Mission", and there are a number of extracts from that. It is a book, and there are a number of extracts from that in the document book, and it is contended that they are cumulative of evidence which has already been given, and that in particular the most of them is really provocative. That applies particularly to the first extract.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by provocative?
MR. BARRINGTON: Well, your Lordship will see that in the first extract there are some rather strongly worded opinions.
THE PRESIDENT: Which book are they in?
MR. BARRINGTON: They are in Book Six, By Lord. There are some rather strongly worded opinions about the position of Soviet Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
MR. BARRINGTON: One hundred and ninety six and 197 are German memoranda and reports for Foreign Office use, and they cover the same category as 193 and 194. One of them is internal to the Foreign Office and the other from the German Charge d'Affaires in Washington.
Number 204 is objected to as not being evidence; it is a memorandum of the Director of the Political Department of the Foreign Office in Berlin, and it merely talks of a report in the "Berliner Boersenzeitung."
It is merely secondhand evidence.
Number 207 is the same document as the previous one. It is a mere repetition. British "Blue Book", and I am afraid I haven't had time to check up which of them are actually in evidence already. For instance, it is clear that the majority of them are obviously relevant, but it is suggested that those in the left-hand column do include unnecessary detail in view of the rest of them. Nevile Henderson on the 30th of August 1939, and that of course has been the subject of evidence already and is perhaps in any event cumulative for that reason. British "Blue Book." communique to the German public, and it is contended that those have no evidential value. refused to the defendants. is Norway and Denmark.
THE PRESIDENT: Group four, is it? Group Four, is that right?
MR. BARRINGTON: Group four, My Lord, yes.
215-A and 215-B deal with the case of Iceland and Greenland. They are not very long documents; they are just considered to be irrelevant. Objection to them couldn't be very strong. I think; and D-629 is already in evidence. press, which the prosecution says is not proper evidence.
press.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you object to those two Ribbentrop communiques to the press?
MR. BARRINGTON: It is self-creating evidence, My Lord. He has presumably given that evidence already.
THE PRESIDENT: He hadn't given it at the same time. What he said six years ago might be relevant.
MR. BARRINGTON: Well, if My Lordship thinks so; but the point I was quoting is simply that it is self-created evidence and created at the time with a view to create an impression. It is propaganda.
THE PRESIDENT: You may say that, yes.
MR. BARRINGTON: Then, My Lord, the next group is the Low Countries. That group really began at 218, of course, and it goes on to two hundred and forty-
THE PRESIDENT: Is this another group?
MR. BARRINGTON: This is the fifth group, My Lord, yes. That goes on from 218 to 245, and I won't deal in detail with it because the French chief prosecutor is going to speak about that. And the same with the next groups number six, which is the Balkans. The French chief prosecutor will deal with that, documents 246 to 278. With the exception, I think, of 285, and which seems to have gotten there by mistake -- it appears to refer to the United States.
Two hundred and seventy-nine I can't identify from the English translation; what it is at all. Perhaps Your Lordship will be good enough to make an amendment against numbers 282 and 283; they should be put into the middle column, there being no objection to them. But there is an objection to all the other Russian documents. My Lordship will see, beginning at the bottom of the group, 291 to 295, they all concern the Anti-Comintern Pact.
Working up the page again from the bottom, 290/1/5 are extracts from the book which the Tribunal has already refused.
And of the documents above that , 280 is Hitler's speech about Russia in October 1939. the Three-Power Pact. That will be dealt with.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that that is a textual reproduction?
MR. BARRINGTON: I think I am right that it is a textual reproduction.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But why is there an objection if it is a reproduction of a textual reproduction?
MR. BARRINGTON: There is no objection at all.
MR. BIDDLE: You mean it is not in the right column?
MR. BARRINGTON: I was putting in the Allied column only the ones which would make up a complete set according to the prosecution's views.
MR. BIDDLE: Is that true of 284 also, the Soviet-German pact?
MR. BARRINGTON: I don't know whether that has come before-
MR. BIDDLE: Why do you object to that then?
THE PRESIDENT: By "Pact," is it the German Pact of the 28th of September 1939?
MR. BARRINGTON: This is the 26th of September 1939, My Lord.
MR. BARRINGTON: I am told that there is no objection to that. conclusions of fact, and the prosecution say that has no proper evidential value. It is a very long report by the German Foreign Office concerning the agitation in Europe against the German Reich by the Soviet Union, and it is full of conclusions of fact and opinions.
THE PRESIDENT: It is after the date of the beginning of war against Russia.
MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, it is after the beginning of that war, My Lord.
No. 286 and 287, those are objected to as being without value as evidence. They come from the Voelkischer Beobachter.
No. 288 is said to be a captured Soviet document, but that is generally in the English version, has no date and no signature, and it seems of very doubtful value.
No. 289 is a report from the Yugoslav military attache in Moscow, which is also thought to be irrelevant by the Prosecutions.
Then group No. 8, My Lordm is the group concerning the United States of America, documents 299 to 310, and including 283-A. The first ten documents, My Lordship will see, are reports from--we would say they come from a very indirect source, the process report by the polish ambassador on the political situation of the United States in 1939. The next one seems to come from Portugal, and the next from the Polish ambassador again, the next two also from the Polish ambassador. Then the next one, No. 300, is President Roosevelt's guarantee speech in 1937, which seems too far back to be of any proper relevance. No. 301 is a German summary of events in the United States, which we say is irrelevant for the reason I have stated, that they are German summaries--rather mere unreliable than irrelevant. No. 302 again is the Polish ambassador's report. No. 303 is a statement by President Roosevelt in 1936. No. 304 is President Roosevelt's motion to Congress on the 4th of January, 1939. I do not think there is anything very objectionable about that. There is no objection to Nos. 303 to 308. In my copy there are two different versions of No. 309. The first one is a German summary of facts without any dates and with no sources indicated. It seems to be of no proper value as evidence. The second one, 309 and 309-A, are declarations of the Pan-American conference and the German note in reply to it. I do not think the Prosecution can take a very strong objection to that, but it does not seem to be very closely in point.
TC-72, No. 127, and TC-72, No. 124, are both appeals of President Roosevelt to Hitler and are not objected to.