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.
No. 310 is another German summary of facts without any sources indicated. will turn back to the first page of my notes, it is the first eight documents on that page, down to No. 45. They are all allowed. There is no objection to then, except No. 12, which is the announcement of the Reichstag election results. It does not matter one way or the other whether that is in.
No. 45 is Lord Wallace's book "Warnings and Prophecies" of predictions and prophecies, I think which the Prosecution contends is not relevant evidence in this case.
The next lot of miscellaneous ones is on page 2, Nos. 70 to 73. No. 71 is the German-Lithuanian treaty about Memel, and there is no objection. No. 70 is thought to be rather irrelevant. No. 72 and 73 are objected to because they deal with the Fourteen points of president Wilson. right at the bottom, No. 296. That is a speech by Hitler on the Rhineland. You have all the evidence that has been given. It appears to be rather cumulative, if it is not in already. I have not actually checked whether it is in.
No. 298, on the top of the next page, is, in fact, superfluous. It is the same as No. 274 Down at the bottom of the last page, My Lord, 311, is a paper written by the defendant Ribbentrop on the Fuehrer's personality.
THE PRESIDENT: That has already been ruled out.
MR. BARRINGTON: That, I think, has been ruled out by My Lordship. No. 312 is an affidavit of Frau von Ribbentrop. No. 313 is an affidavit of Dr. Gottfriedsen. I understand from Dr. Horn that, although he had been allowed Dr. Gottfriedsen as a witness, he thinks it will save time if he read the affidavit or a part of it. perhaps, if Your Lordship will allow the Prosecution to make what comments they think fit when he comes to do that, it would be the best way of treating it.
Those are all my points, My Lord. There are just the low countries in the Balkans.
MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal, Mr. Barrington has spoken for all of us, and I do not intend to go over any of these documents, except, that because I fear there is some question in the minds of the members of the Tribunal about our objection to documents running from 76 through 116, 118 to 122, and 114 to 148, the Polish documents, we also say, of course with Mr. Barrington that they are cumulative, but it seems to me there is a much more basic objection.
They all have to do with the alleged incidents inside of Poland and they were published in these White Papers. These incidents involved the mistreatment of polish citizens inside Poland, who were perhaps of German extraction, bell, it is our view that such documents are irrelevant here because it has no defense at all to the charges, and we cannot permit, we say, a nation to defend itself or these defendants to defend themselves on charges such as have been preferred here by proving that citizens of another state, although they may have been of German extraction or of any other extraction, were mistreated inside that state. These are beginning with 76, running through to 116; 118 through 122; 114 through 148; and 151 through 152. It is 124; through 148, rather than 114 through 148. The last one is 151 and 152.
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: I will ask the Tribunal's permission to make two short reports on documents which are part of the fifth and sixth group, and which concern documents which are exclusively French and which have been taken from the German White Book. It is only in this way that the French Prosecution have taken cognizance of them contrary to what the Tribunal believes. The French Prosecution has not yet received a translation of the documents submitted by Dr. Horn. The first group, documents Nos. 221 to 245, are military documents, which Dr. Horn, it seems wishes to draw conclusions from to the effect that England and France violated the neutrality of Belgium. If we ask the Tribunal to reject the twentyfive documents, it is exclusively because we see the possibility of the Tribunal's using its time uselessly in discussion. We do not wish to present discussion, but we feel that it would be found that France and Belgium both scrupulously respected the pact which they had, that is to say, to respect the neutrality of Belgium; and, secondly, to respect the pact in which they had to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium.
or France or England that violated the neutrality of Belgium. Well, this matter has been asked of the accused, Ribbentrop, by his Counsel, and the accused has answered in the clearest manner possible -- at Saturday's session -- which the Tribunal certainly will remember. Ribbentrop stated that it is quite clear that "it is always very difficult in such a war to violate the neutrality of a country and one does not believe that there are things which we did lightheartedly." wherefore there is absolutely no reason for us now to discuss the matter of these twenty-five documents and whether they are pertinent.
Now, I come to the second group, Group No.6, General Staff Documents, which Germany pretends to have seized, and these concern events in the Balkans in 1939 and 1940. The French Prosecution asks you to reject the twenty-two documents submitted by Dr. Horn for the following two reasons;
That they have absolutely no character of authenticity; secondly, that they are not relevant; their authenticity -- as they are all extracted from the White Book, and the Tribunal knows the point of view of the Prosecution on this point. Moreover, a great number of these documents are documents which are represented to have come from Allied General Staffs. The individuals are not submitted. It is not said where they came from, and not one of these is brought in evidence in full. They all concern plans studied by General Staffs in 1939 and early 1940, and these plans of French or British intervention in Yugoslavia or Greece supposed, of course, that the Governments of these countries would agree or the plans would never be put into effect. unfortunately, to abandon all such plans. The documents are of 1939 and of 1940, and the Tribunal will remember that the aggression against Yugoslavia and Greece occurred on April 6, 1941, at a time when the government of Hitler had no mere reason to fear any plans of 1939. to the present discussion, and that is why the French Prosecution asks the Tribunal to reject them.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn?
(Dr. Horn approached the lectern) Dr. Horn, before you speak, the Tribunal thinks that possibly you may, in viewof the evidence given by the Defendant von Ribbentrop, find it feasible to withdraw some of these documents, in view of the time that has been taken up.
The Defendant von Ribbentrop has dealt with the subject very fully and it may be, therefore, that you will be able to withdraw some of these documents in order to save time.
DR. HORN: Certainly, Mr. President, any documents which might be cumulative I willwithdraw. I want to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: If you let us know now what it is you wish to withdraw-
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President.
May I state my position as to a few basic questions? That is the probative value of reports by Embassies and in White Books. I would like to point out that these documents were decisive in forming a political opinion. That applies to von Ribbentrop as well as Hitler. And in addition, I would like to point out that the Prosecution in large scope has referred to similar reports, and I would ask for equal opportunity to the Defense in this connection. French General Staff. These documents which were found in the City of La Charitie during the course of the French campaign. If the doubts and misgivings as expressed by the French Prosecution are shared by the High Tribunal, I ask that the Commander of Heeresgruppe C be summoned as a witness -General loeb -- to show that these documents were all found in the City of La Charitie. the Polish Foreign Ministry, and as to that, the then Commander-in-Chief, Colonel General Blaskowits, can testify. And in this case I would wish to summon Blaskowitz as a witness, if the Tribunal has any doubts or misgivings in this connection. to only if incorrectness of the documents is shown by their contents, or if it can be proved that the documents were forged.
All other documents such as White Book reports or Ambassadors' reports, I ask that the Tribunal at least admit them as evidence. to point out that the Prime Minister Chamberlain himself considered the minority question as the decisive question between Germany and Poland, and this problem was equally as important as Danzig and The Corridor, and this question is therefore a reason for war. treatment of minorities -- violations on the part of Poland -- be admitted in evidence. judicial notice those documents and to quote certain vital phrases. And I would like to tell the Tribunal which documents and which parts I will dispense with.
DR. DIX (Counsel for the Defendant Schacht): I should be very grateful to the High Tribunal, aside from Ribbentrop's own case, as a basic principle, and not only from the point of view of the Defense, but purely objectively and basically, if I should be permitted to point out and take a position on the various questions which the High Tribunal must decide, whether it be a question of testimony of a witness or perhaps the matter of documentary evidence a request but I believe that we can abbreviate future discussions and debates in this manner. For I believe the High Tribunal will agree with me that the Defense will be saved lengthy speeches later on. Of course, I leave it up to the High Tribunal whether they consider this theproper time or whether I shall wait until my colleague, Dr. Horn, has completed the submission of documents. However, I would like to say this before the High Tribunal rules on the requests of the Prosecution and of Dr. Horn's: I would like to put the following question to the High Tribunal, whether it is agreeable to the High Tribunal that I briefly take a position on the questions, which in my opinion are rather important, before decision and ruling by the High Tribunal. May I do so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. DIX: I believe, without judging the legal basis of the exposition made here, and without judging them as to their legal worth, that certain fundamental concepts have been confused and presented.
piece of evidence -- and that applies to witnesses as well as documents -relevant? Point 2, is a piece of evidence as such, effective, and does it have value? Point 3, is a piece of evidence cumulative and therefore is it to be rejected on that count?
cumulative, then the request for evidencemust be turned down at this stage in the proceedings. If, however, the question of the credibility of a piece of evidence is concerned--that is the question of whether the answer of a witness can be believed or not or the question of whether the content of a document is to be considered creditable, as for instance, whether expositions set forth in a White Book are to be believed or not to be believed--that, in my opinion is a question which can be decided only when the piece of evidence at issue has been submitted and taken into the proceedings. no cause to say that this document is not to be used for it is a part of a document book of the German government. That a White Book, an official publication of any government, can be relevant nobody will doubt. Whether the passage that is read is of such value that the High Tribunal can give it credence, that is a question that will have to be decided after the piece of evidence has been submitted and after the piece of evidence has been admitted and the Tribunal has taken official notice of it. and the British Prosecutor has stated that reports of the German ambassadors to their Foreign Minister are, per se, not effective and should not be used. At least, that is the way I understood him. Only if the Prosecution wishes to use them can they be admitted; only if the Prosecutor wishes to use them can they be considered relevant. defended. The member of the British Prosecution cited Article 21 of the Charter, but Article 21 of the Charter does not concern this question. Article 21 of the Charter says only, so far as I have it in memory and I believe I do know the contents of it, says only that the investigation of the Victory powers, that crimes against war which more committed in their own countries do not have to be enumerated but merely to submit them forjudicial notice, but this question has nothing to do with the question of relevancy. The quest of a report by a German ambassador to his Foreign Office does not concern this problem. Whether this report is to be admitted can be decided by whether what it is to prove will be considered relevant by the Tribunal.
If the things which are to be proved are considered relevant by the High Tribunal and a basis is given, then this report should be admitted, and after its admission the High Tribunal can decide on the creditability. Therefore, a clear differentiation between relevancy, effectiveness and usefulness of evidence is to be considered, and whether objective or subjective creditability is to be given.
Now, as to the question of the cumulative problme. All jurists must be agreed, that cumulative pieces of evidence should not be admitted. Whether a piece of evidence is cumulative should not be treated mechanically or formally. I can very well picture a question which seems to be verbatim to a question already put, not for those reasons which I will enumerate in just a minute, and that one question may be similar to another and may not be cumulative at the same time, for the witness gave the same piece of evidence but only used different words. That a question which has been previously put and may be like it in words but does not necessarily have to be cumulative is proved by the old proverb "Si non facium idem non est idem." If, for instance, I question a witness who was a fanatical adherent of the Nazi regime and then put the same question to a witness who was a fanatical anti-Nazi, then these two questions are certainly not cumulative. Therefore one has to consider the witness to judge whether a question is cumulative. has previously been put but which need not be cumulative is that if I put the question to the defendant and then I put it to a witness who is concerned. I am not concerned with the testimony, and I do not wish to make derogatory remarks about statements being made under oath by a witness; basically, testimony of the witness is alike, but there is a great difference to take up the time of the High Tribunal for too long, but my purpose was only to request the High Tribunal in its decision--first of all, relevancy; second, usability--to differentiate as to the inner value which is to be decided upon after such evidence has been admitted, and, as far as the cumulative value is concerned, not to be guided by the outward appearance of the document but to examine whether it would not be in the interest of truth and give a deeper insight to put the same question to different people, or to put the same question and to have it confirmed through documents put down by different people.
but I tried to clarify the picture, and I hope that I have partially succeeded, so that we can abbreviate future debates on this subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, the Tribunal would like to know how long you are going to be over these documents, because we are getting further and further behind. I mean, how long do you anticipate that you will be? Have you made up your mind yet what documents you are prepared to withdraw, if any
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I believe that I need two more hours, without objections on the part of the Prosecution, and I believe that I may read the most important parts of my documents, and I believe that I can conclude in about two hours--but, I repeat, without objections by the Prosecution; I would say two hours.
THE PRESIDENT: You have heard the Prosecution's objections. We have heard them. We will consider them, and we will consider any answer that you make to them, but we do not desire at this stage, when we have all these other defendants' cases to be heard, that you should go into these documents in detail now and read then, and we hope that you will not think it necessary to read from these documents after you have answered the objections of the Prosecution to certain of the documents.
DR. HORN: I have the intention-
THE PRESIDENT: Have you the idea that you have finished your argument in answer to the Prosecution's objections or not? Did you intend to deal further with the admissibility of any of these documents or not?
DR. HORN: I intended, as the Tribunal wished me to do the other day, to submit these documents and also, in each group where the Prosecution has objected, to make a few remarks at those points, but I had no further intentions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you see, the position is this. The prosecution have objected to certain documents, on certain grounds, and we want to give you a full opportunity to answer those objections. When you have made your full answer to those objections, we think it will be appropriate that we should adjourn and decide upon those objections and upon your arguments. Do you see? That is, after you have given your answer to the objections, we should adjourn and decide which of the documents we rule to be admissible in evidence.
DR, HORN: If the High Tribunal intends to rule after I have taken my position on the objections of the prosecution, then I ask that I have this opportunity now, first of all -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Dr. Horn. You see, it is 5 o'clock, and we shan't be able to conclude it tonight.
Dr. Horn, if you could conclude your argument in answer to the questions of principle which have been raised by the prosecution now, we think it would be the most convenient course if you could do it in a fairly Short time. I mean, you have heard what the prosecution say about these various groups, and it would be more convenient, we think, if you could answer that in the space of a quarter of an hour now.
DR. HORN: First of all, I would like to refer to documents numbered 48 to 61. As far as these documents are concerned, 48 to 61, I might use the sheets used by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: Documents 48 to 61 were rejected for the reason that they were irrelevant, but these documents concern themselves with rearmament, or preparation for war, all on the opposite side. Only if I can present the German evidence in contradiction to the evidence of the other side can I present the motives which determined Hitler and Ribbentrop in basic questions I cannot treat the violation of law of a matter if I do not show the complete picture, and for the complete picture we need the demeanor of the opposite side. Therefore, I consider these documents as highly relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: The next decisive group contains those documents which deal with the Polish minority problem. The prosecutor has said that through a German-Polish agreement of the 5th of November 1937, the minority problem was sactioned by both countries.