To make it quite clear, I do not wish to prejudice myself here at this moment.
THE PRESIDENT:It is a material question to consider in considering what evidence is relevant. But as you do not wish to commit yourself upon the point, you can proceed.
DR. HORN:The next witness is Ambassador Dr. Paul Schmidt, interpreter at the Foreign Office in Berlin, at this time probably at Oberuersel camp.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the next two witnesses, who are grouped together in the application, they are desired to give evidence of the fact that this defendant asked Hitler five or six times for permission to resign. Again I make the point, which I have made several times to the Tribunal, that if these witnesses can give evidence from the Hitler side of these offers, then there would be no objection.
If they merely give evidence of the fact that von Ribbentrop told them that he had offered to resign, that does not, in the submission of the Prosecution, take it any further. But it may well be that there are letters which went to Hitler which these gentlemen saw and if that is the purpose of their evidence, than the Prosecution feel that it might be relevant, certainly on the question of sentence, if not, though they would reserve all rights to say whether it was a question of guilt of innocence in view of the provisions of the Charter.
I therefore suggest that the reasonable course would be for both these gentlemen to make affidavits of their means of knowledge and that would deal with the point which I have put to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you suggest a preliminary affidavit rather than interrogatories? Would not interrogatories be wiser?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: I would agree, My Lord, interrogatories which would cover that Point of means of knowledge would be the best thing.
I do not think, if I may put it that way, that it would be worth while making two bites at the cherry, if I may use a colloquialism.
DR. HORN:We can talk about the next two witnesses at the same time and I can say that Sir David will give the same reasons against them as he did with the other English witnesses.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought, my Lord, that my friend and I could agree that they stand or fall with the Tribunal's decision on Admiral Schuster.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, they are the same.
DR. HORN:Then, I would like to forego the calling of these two witnesses, provided the Court will permit me to call Admiral Schuster.
The next witness is the former Chief of the Protocol at the Foreign Office, Doernberg, at this time most probably interned at Augsburg.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: Again, with great respect, Herr Doernberg's views on the veracity of Count Ciano, in my submission, are not relevant. If we get into calling witnesses to express their views as to the veracity of or other characteristics of the statesmen of Europe, the Tribunal would embark on a course that might well take a very long time and would not lead to any great results and I respectfully submit that this is not a class of testimony or a ground of testimony which the Tribunal should entertain.
DR. HORN:To this point I can say that Count Ciano, through his diary is available to us now, at least on important points, and with regard to the proof which Dr. Doernberg is ready to give us and which we will present to the Court.
The second point is that the statement of Doernberg deals with the matter of an Order. The Russian Prosecution has said against Ribbentrop that he has sold Siebenbuergen for a high Rumanian Order. I would like to either question Mr. Doernberg here about this point or in the form of on affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
DR. HORN:As next witness I name Ambassador Schnurre, who was the chief of the trade political department of the foreign office. I do not know where he is right now. Probably he is a prisoner of the Allies in the British zone.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: With great respect, My Lords, the Prosecution again say that there is no need for a witness to be called to give information that his political chief intended to keep the treaty that he signed. The very grounds that are given for the application seem to me to show that this is really a matter of comment and argument, and we submit that a witness on this point is both irrelevant and unnecessary.
DR. HORN:I ask the Tribunal to permit me to call this witness for the following reasons: The fact alone that the witness was informed about the intentions of his chief is not so important for me, but the fact that, on the basis of participation at the negotiations, treaty negotiations, he was also in contant with other important persons, and, therefore, is informed about the background of this treaty, and thereby he can speak about an important point of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT:May I ask you again, with reference to the relevance of this evidence, suppose it were true that in August 1939 the German authorities intended to keep the treaty which they made with Russia, that depended or might have depended upon whether England supported Poland in the War which Germany was about to begin with Poland, and it may very well be that the German authorities intended to keep the treaty with Russia in order to keep Russia out of the war with Poland and England. Therefore, how would the intention of Ribbentrop at that time be relevant?
DR. HORN:Mr. President, it is in determining a criminal fact that is important to determine the question of guilt. To what extent did the Defendant Ribbentrop try to keep the treaty as a human being? And it is a different question how far, by political necessity and other forces, he may have been compelled to witness how a treaty was not kept in the sense in which it was meant originally.
THE PRESIDENT:You can pass on
DR. HORN:Ambassador Ritter of the foreign office. He was liaison man with the OKW -- High Command of the Wehrmacht; at this time probably at the internment camp at Augsburg.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: The application for Ambassador Ritter falls into two parts: One raises the point which we have just been discussing with regard to the Russo-German treaty of 23 August 1939, and I have indicated the view of the Prosecution on that. The second point deals with the Defendant's attitude with regard to the treatment of Allied airmen. The position at the moment is that I put in a document which was prepared by Ambassador Ritter, and another agreement in which Ambassador Ritter said that the Defendant Ribbentrop had approved the memorandum from the German foreign office dealing with the proposals for lynching aviators and handing them over to the SD before they could become prisoners of war and entitled to the rights under the Convention.
If it is desired to say that Ambassador Ritter was wrong in stating that Ribbentrop had approved the memorandum, then, of course, it would be a relevant point. But at the moment these documents are in, and I am not quite clear from this for what purpose my friend wishes him called on the second point. If there is any further purpose, then perhaps Dr. Horn will indicate it.
DR. HORN:I just stated the reason why I want to call this witness. The witness will tell us that Ribbentrop was against the treatment of terror fliers, from the fact that Germany left the Convention without notifying the powers which were interested.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: He says he wants to call Ambassador Ritter to contradict the two documents prepared by him, Ambassador Ritter, which are already in evidence. Then I can't make any objection. That is obviously a relevant point, if he is going to contradict his own document.
THE PRESIDENT:Would it be acceptable to Dr. Horn to have interrogatories administered to Ambassador Ritter, or would the Prosecution prefer that he should be called, if he is called, or if he gives evidence of any sort.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: If he gives evidence, the Prosecution would prefer that he should be called, because that is our position. There are two documents in prepared by this gentleman, and if he is going to contradict them, then I suggest he should come and do it in person.
DR. HORN:I leave it to the Prosecution to decide.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
DR. HORN:The next witness is the former German Ambassador in Oslo, Norway, von Grundherr, probably at this time in Allied custody.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: Again, I don't want to go into detail. The position is that there is a document before the Court signed by the Defendant Rosenberg in which he says that 10,000 pounds a month were given to Quisling through an arrangement with this gentleman. If Dr. Horn wishes to call Herr von Grundherr to contradict the statement of the Defendant Rosenberg, again I suppose the Prosecution cannot make any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN:Regarding the witnesses which I have listed under points 30 to 34, I can reduce my statement to the fact that I want to call them in order to get information that Ribbentrop, from 1933 to 1939, was seriously concerned about amelioration of relations with France. First of all, the witness M. Daladier, former Prime Minister of France, can testify about these designs. If the Court should decide that these witnesses, or some of these witnesses, could make their statements in the form of affidavits, I will present questions which have to do with the accusation against my client.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: In the submission of the Prosecution, the grounds stated for calling these witnesses are too vague and general to justify their being called before the Court.
When two countries are at peace, the fact that a foreign minister or an ambassador has made statements saying that he hopes the good relations between the two countries will continue, or words to that effect, does not really take us any further; and it would, in the submission of the Prosecution, be a waste of time for witnesses to be called for such a purpose.
Apart from that, the first four witnesses, the Marquis and Marquise De Polignac, and Count and Countess Jean de Castellan, as far as the Prosecution know, have not been in any official position, and there is, therefore, the additional objection that calling people who may be the most admirable people, but are in a position of general friendship, to talk as to what really becomes their view of the state of mind of a Defendant, is not evidence which is relevant or which the Tribunal should entertain.
DR. HORN:With these witnesses the Defense will prove just the fact that the interests of Ribbentrop, considering better relations with France went further than could be seen by remarks which normally would not be considered to be any more than international courtesy. For this reason, I ask to permit me to call one or the other of the witnesses of this group.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Horn, these witnesses seem to raise the same question as to relevance as I put to you earlier on them.
Assuming that it was the intention of the German foreign office to try to keep France out of any war which Germany was preparing to make, what relevance has that got to the question whether she was about to make an aggressive war upon Poland?
DR. HORN:I would like to prove through these witnesses that it was at least not in the intentions of the Defendant von Ribbentrop to plan wars and prepare wars., but that for decades he has tried to improve relations with the neighboring states around Germany.
The Prosecution, Mr. President, accuses my client also of having planned aggressive war against England and France. If the Prosecution foregoes this point, I, of course, can forego the calling of these witnesses,
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. We will consider three.
DR. HORN:The next witness is or. Ernest Tennant, of London.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: I don't know the gentleman, and I have never heard of him, and the only information which is in the application is that he is a member of the firm of Tennant and Company and a member of the Bath Club, and also that he was well known to the Defendant Ribbentrop. The matters for which he is sought to be called are surely the acme of irrelevance. It is submitted that the witness can testify that in the early and middle 30's the defendant asked him to bring him in contact with Lord Baldwin, Mr. MacDonald and Lord Davidson, for the purpose of negotiating with the latter toward paving the way to a good political relations, aiming at the conclusion of an alliance. In 1936 the Defendant was Ambassador to the Court of St. James, Mr. MacDonald had just ceased being Prime Minister in 1935, and was still, I think, Lord President of the Council. Lord Baldwin was then Prime Minister. Lord Davidson, I think, was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the same administration. At any rate, he held a comparatively less important office.
But how it can be relevant to the issues before this Tribunal, that at or shortly before that time the Defendant asked a gentleman of no official position whether he could introduce him to the three gentleman I have just mentioned, I really suggest cannot be stated, and I submit that this witness should not be allowed.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, in the naming of witnesses, we always come back to the same principal question.
By the Prosecution the question is always raised: What can this witness tell us about the fact that Germany has or not not started or caused a war against Poland, while the witness comes from an entirely different country and has nothing to do with Poland, or Polish conditions?
The Defense is of the opinion, however, that the entire policy towards Poland by Germany can only be understood in the framework of the entire European politics. Therefore, the Defense has called for witnesses whom the Prosecution would like to exclude because they can tell about the big picture, and they can give individual cornerstones for the entire framework. Therefore, I also ask for Professor Cornell-Evans of London.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: I have never heard of Professor Conwell-Evans, and he does not appear in the "Who's Who", the British publication showing a very large number of the citizens who have certain grades of distinction or hold certain offices. But I would like Dr. Horn to consider this point, which I respectfully put to the Tribunal:
Accepting that every word that is stated in this application with regard to Professor Conwell-Evans was said in court by Professor ConwellEvans, I submit that it would not advance the case at all, and that the Tribunal would be left in exactly the same position if it had that evidence as it is in at the present moment.
After all, the Defendant will be able to give evidence himself and to make his own impression to the Tribunal as to his intentions and as to his own honesty of mind at various times. The submission of the Prosecution is that the evidence of this gentleman would not help the trial at all and is not relevant to any issue before the Court.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
DR. HORN:As next witness I name Wolfgang Michel.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: This gentleman is stated to have been a partner in the Defendant's former business. According to the application, it is really desired that he should give his views of the Defendant's general attitude and state of mind. Again, the Prosecution fails to see to what issue he is relevant, but it may be that it would please the Defendant to have affidavits from an old business partner to give his views on the Defendant. If that is desired, the Prosecution would be prepared to consider such an affidavit, but they really must take up the consistent attitude that a witness of this kind is irrelevant, a witness who is going to say, "I have known this Defendant for twenty years; I have been in business with him; and I have always had a high opinion of him." That, in the submission of the Prosecution, does not touch the issues before this Tribunal, and therefore is irrelevant. But, as I say, if my friend cares to produce an affidavit, the Prosecution will consider it with the greatest sympathy.
DR. HORN:I would be satisfied, in the case of the witness Michel, with an affidavit.
Mr. President, I would like to come back to the witness under No. 5, Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen.
THE PRESIDENT:Are you giving up 38? You didn't deal with 37 You are passing that over, are you?
DR. HORN:I believe that I would hear the same reasons against we as concerning the other witnesses. Therefore, since I believe that the Count is going to decide in principle about the question whether all the background should be submitted by these statements of witnesses, that the court will make decision about that.
Therefore, I have left out the name of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you want to go back to No. 5?
DR. HORN:I would like to come back to No. Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen had the entire official and private handling of finances of the Defendant von Ribbentrop for many years.
Ribbentrop has been accused by many members of the Prosecution that he acquired objects of art and similar things. About this point, Counsellor of Legation Gottfriedsen can make the same decisive statements which will show that these accusations are false. I therefore ask for permission to call this witness.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have just asked Dr. Horn on this point whether he would prefer Herr Gottfriedsen to von Sonnleitner. I think Dr. Horn says that if there was a question of choice he would.
The Prosecution do not want to be unreasonable. I made my general statement that this group of witnesses, of certain foreign office witnesses, ought to be restricted to three. If my friend thinks that Herr Gottfriedsen will be more helpful, especially on this point, I have no objection to the substitution, so long as some limitation is made in the group of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT:Would it be satisfactory if interrogatories were administered?
DR. HORN:Yes, in the case of the witness Gottfriedsen.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
DR. HORN:My statement regarding the calling of witnesses is thereby finished.
DR.STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering): I have not named some witnesses whom have been called by other Defendants' Counsel, and among these is also Dr. Paul Schmidt. I had the greatest interest to question this witness. Schmidt was the interpreter of Goering; he was present at almost all political negotiations with foreign statesmen. Therefore, I ask aloe to call this witness and support thereby the application made by Dr. Herr.
THE PRESIDENT:We will consider that, Dr. Stahmer. We will around now for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken)
DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I please bring one other point to the attention of the Tribunal?
It has to do with the calling of witnesses.
I named the number of the witnesses because I had to ascertain when the conspiracy in general began, and when my client might have taken part in this conspiracy. The prosecution did hot concern itself very exactly with the time at which the conspiracy began, it simply said that it took place some time before the 8th of May, 1944.
Now, if I can call no witnesses as to the years 1933 to 1938, then I must assume that the defendant Ribbentrop, before 1939, was not party to the conspiracy.
I should like this point of view to be taken into consideration when the point is considered as to whether witnesses are relevant.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: It might be helpful, if I indicated quite generally what Dr. Horn has to meet.
The Tribunal will remember that on the 8th end 9th of January I presented the individual case against this defendant. The first point is the time of Hitler's accession to power in 1933. It is the case for the prosecution that this defendant assisted in various ways in that accession. After that, he held various positions in close touch with Hitler.
If Dr. Horn will refer to the transcript of my presentation, he will find that there is detailed, with a note of all the supporting documents, the part which his client played in the aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Poland, England, France, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, and friendly, the United States and Japan. All these matters are set out with the supporting documents, and a reference to them will chow exactly what is alleged against the defendant on that point.
Apart from that, there are four matters under Counts 3 and 4 which are specially raised.
First of all, the defendants pressured that measures contrary to international law and the conventions should be taken against allied aviators. Again, the supporting documents are in evidence.
Secondly, there is General Lahousen's evidence as to what the defendant said with regard to the treatment of the population of Poland.
Thirdly, there is the defendant's responsibility for putting the various protectors of Bohemia and Moravia in office with unrestricted powers, which resulted in the crimes against the populations of these areas.
Then there is a similar position with regard to the Netherlands.
The third main category is the treatment of the Jews. Again, there is an American official document, the report of Ambassador Kennedy; there is a large Foreign Office statement on the policy towards the Jews; and there is a document showing the preparation for an anti-semitic congress, of which this Defendant was to be an honorary member.
Finally, there is the question of plunder, the evidence given by my Soviet colleague on the Ribbentrop Battalions for the collection of plunder, which was given the other day.
If Dr. Horn will consider these various points, which are practically all collected in the transcript for the 8th and 9th of January, except the last point, I don't think he will find that there is any difficulty in deciding the commencement of these allegations or their detailed and concrete constitution.
THE PRESIDENT:Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know whether the Prosecution alleges any particular date at which the conspiracy started; and secondly, they would like to know whether you contend that Defendants joining the conspiracy after it started are responsible for the conspiracy.
What the Tribunal would like to know is whether a person who joins the conspiracy after it started would be responsible for acts committed by the conspirators before he joined.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FIFE: If I might deal with the questions in order, the position of the Prosecution on the question of time is as set out in Count I of the Indictment.
The Prosecution say that the Nazi Party was the core of the conspiracy, and that it was an essential part of the conspiracy that the Nazi Party should obtain political and economic control of Germany in order that they might carry out the aims, set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Nazi Party program.
That part of the conspiracy started with the emergence of the Nazi Party as a force in German politics, and was fully developed in January 1933. At that time it was the aim of the Nazi Party to secure the breaches of the Treaty of Versailles and the other matters set out in these articles, if necessary by force.
But, as is stated, in the statement of offense under Count I of the Indictment, the conspiracy was not static; it was dynamic.
And, in 1934, after Germany left the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference, the aggressive war aspect of the conspiracy increased in momentum.
It is the case for the Prosecution that from 1935 when conscription was introduced and the Air Force cane into being, through 1936 when the Rhineland was re-occupied, the securing of Germany's objectives-the objectives of the Nazi Party--if necessary by aggressive war, became a stronger, clearer and more binding aim.
The position is crystallized by the meeting on the 5th of November 1937, when Hitler declared that Austria and Czechoslovakia would be conquered at the earliest opportunity. That was succeeded by the acquisition of Austria in March, 1933, and the "Fall Gruen" against Czechoslovakia, which originated in May, 1935, to be carried out before October.
From that time the Prosecution say that the plan of aggressive war followed the well-known and clear technique of attacking one country or taking aggressive measures against one country, and giving assurances to the country that was next on the list to be attacked.
From that time the succession and procession of aggressive wars takes a clear course, which I have just mentioned in outlining the aggression against the Defendant Ribbentrop. I may summarize it by saying that the Prosecution submit that the Nazi Party was always engaged in this agreement and concerted action to get control of Germany and carry out its aims, but that the aggression crystallized and became clear from 1934 and the beginning of 1935 onwards.
THETRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Sir David, I would like to ask you a few questions in connection with this.
First of all, you must either know the date when the conspiracy began, or you must not be able to give us the date. Now, is it the contention that the Prosecution does not know when the conspiracy began?
If you do know, would you tell us?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: The conspiracy began with the formation of the Nazi Party.
THETRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): And what was that date?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 1921.
THETRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): 1921?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THETRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Now, was the conspiracy to wage aggressive war begun on that date?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, it was begun in this way. Hitler had said, "I have certain objectives, one of them being to break the Treaty of Versailles--which means also breaking the treaty of friend ship with the United States which has the same clauses--and I shall attain these objectives, if necessary by using force."
That was always one of the beliefs and aims of the Party.
Now, if people agree to commit an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal methods, that is, ipso facto, the committing of the offense of conspiracy.
Conspiracy is constituted by the agreement, not by the acts carrying out the agreement.
Therefore, in that way the conspiracy starts in 1921.
But, as Mr. Justice Jackson made clear in his opening, and as I have repeated this morning, the aims, and more particularly the methods by which the conspirators sought to achieve these aims, grew and acquired particular forms as the years went on.
They appear to have required the special form and to have decided on the method of breaking the Treaty of Versailles in 1934 and bringing that to fruition in 1935.
I am not seeking to avoid answering the question of the learned American Judge, but I am putting, in summary form, exactly what is stated in both the statement of offense and the particulars of offense under Count 1, and I hope that I will not be thought to be avoiding the question.
I am not doing that. I am trying to put it in the clearest and most accurate language.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Well, I wouldn't ask you except to clarify the matter in my own mind, Sir David.
Let me ask you a few more questions.
The conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity -- was that begun in 1921?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: To the extent that a general readiness was adopted to use all methods, irrespective of the rights, safety, and happiness of other people, it was commenced with the start of the Nazi Party. Ruthlessness and disregard for the rights, and safety and happiness of others was a badge of the Nazi Party program, in so far as the rights and happiness of others might interfere with their aims, from the very start.
Again, the translation of the into practical methods developed as the years went on, and in a period well before the war -- Mr. Biddle will not put it against me that I should not remember exact documents in an answer straight off the rule to his question, but well before the war --there will be found again and again in the speeches of Hitler to his associates that utter ruthlessness and disregard for non-German populations should be employed. That is the foundation of the war crimes and crimes against humanity, and it was initiated and grew in the method which I have stated.
THETRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Bid you answer the President with respect to the question of whether the conspirators joining later were responsible? If that were true, then this defendant would be responsible for acts running back to 1921.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: Well, there are two legal conceptions which have to be borne in mind in considering that point. I can only speak with knowledge on the law of England, but I understand that the law of the United States is very much the same.
In England there is a common law offense of conspiracy. There are also certain statutory offenses, but there is a common law offense of conspiracy. The gist of that offense is, as I have already stated, entering into an agreement to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. As far as a conviction for conspiracy per se is concerned, there is no doubt about the law of England. If someone joins a conspiracy at a late state, a conspiracy to do any illegal act, he can be convicted of conspiracy to do that act however late he joins.
The usual analogy, with which I am sure the learned American Judge is familiar, is that of a stage play.
The fact that a character does not come in until Act 3 does not mean that he is any the less carrying out the design of the author of the play to present the whole picture which the play embraces. It is a very useful analogy because it shows the position.
That is one aspect of the law, and on that there is no doubt at all.
The other aspect of the law is as to how far those who act in consort to commit a crime are responsible for each other's acts, that is, irrespective of the substantive offense of conspiracy. If one may take an example, a highly fantastic one but I think it raises the point, assume that you had a conspiracy on the part of road operators to wreck railway trains, and a number of road operators agreed in December to wreck a train on the first of January, and to wreck a further train on the first of February. Between the first of January and the first of February, in other road operator joins the conspiracy. I hope I have got rightly the point in My Lord's mind and in the mind of the learned American Judge. Then, there is, as far as I can see, some doubt as to whether that road operator would be liable for a murder committed in the wrecking that took place on the first of January.
I hope I have made my point clear. I am postulating someone who joins a conspiracy on the 15th of January, after the first wrecking has been carried out, during which someone has been killed, and therefore those who consorted with regard to the first wrecking are guilty of murder. But as to the person who joins after that, there is some doubt as to whether he acquires retroactive responsibility. In English law, it would appear to be at least doubtful. It certainly is arguable that in American law he would, as I have been told the decision.
THETRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): I think you have made that very clear, Sir David, but what I am getting at it what the Prosecution claim in this case.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry if I have been theoretical, but it has been rather a difficult point, and I wanted to relate it to the law with which I am most familiar.
With regard to the present case, the Prosecution say that the defendants do become responsible for the consequences of acts done in pursuance of the conspiracy.
It is rather difficult to speak entirely in vacuo in the matter, but if one may take, for example -- again I speak from memory -- the defendant Speer, who comes on the scene rather late, if my recollection is right, he then becomes Minister for Production and Armaments and makes the demands for the slave labor which were fulfilled by the defendant Sauckel.
In the submission of the Prosecution, there would not be any difficulty in convicting the Defendant Speer on all counts, assuming that the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Prosecution. By his actions, he has conspired to commit a crime against peace; he has joined and entered into the conspiracy to carry on aggressive war; he has taken part in the waging of aggressive war by making the demands for the slave labor; he has instigated a war crime, namely the is-treatment of populations of occupied countries; and also, by instigating and procuring the action of the defendant Sauckel, he has committed crimes against humanity in that he has participated in actions which are condemned by the criminal law of all civilized countries; and probably -- I am speaking from memory now -- these actions have taken place in countries where it is arguable whether they were strictly occupied countries after an invasion, as in Czechoslovakia.
On the method in which our indictment is drawn, there is no difficulty, the Prosecution submit, in convicting a defendant who emerges in evidence at a later date on each of the counts.
THETRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Just one more question and then I am through. You understand I am asking these questions only in performance of what we are doing to determine what witnesses should be called, and therefore the year 1921 as the beginning of the conspiracy becomes a year obviously not remote in time when we consider witnesses. would that not follow?
SID DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: Not-
THETRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Not remote in time with relation to the conspiracy.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: No, it is part of the particular indictment.
DR. HORN:Mr. President, may I make some remarks in answer to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.
I am reading what is substance in the general accusation as regards the conspiracy. The general accusation states that the definitive point of time from which one could depart is any time before the 8th of May, 1945.
The Chief American Prosecutor said in his opening statement that the Party program in itself is a program of '21, later revised, and these points of the reply program in so far as these goals cannot be pursued through war.
Now. if we examine these goals and Suppose that they are pursued by war; it we first dubious from what point of time on these actually became the goal of the party and both the Defense and Prosecution must prove that from that point of time one, tie pursuit of these goals was to take place in the form of was.
It can further hardly be contested that as regards planning war, only a very few people and perhaps only one person, know of it.
Now, in the case of the value defendants, as well as my own client, the times at which they join are varied, and also the times at which they came in touch with the Party itself. Some of them were simply Party members, and we must consequently assume, as the Prosecution does, that the Party program was also their own program.
Now the question arises for the defense above all, and for the whole conduct of the defense. When can the individual defendant be considered to have entered into the sphere of those who knew that the goals could only be pursued by war, which he did not know before that time and which he had previously supposed were to be pursued without resource to war Was Ribbentrop a member of the innter circle of the conspiracy? Before 1932 was he in touch with party policy? was he, as ambassador, aware of the conspiracy, or was he only party to such at a later date and only found out at this later date that the Party intended to pursuits Its goals through war? From the earliest time in which the defendant come in touch with the party, it is assumed by the Prosecution that from to at tome on he was a member of the conspiracy.
If may refer to what Sir David said, he stated that the conspiracy began in the year 1921. It is my task to prove though witness that my client, for example, until the year 1939 was pursuing peaceful time. I must do so in order to refute the contention that he was preparing a war or had anything precisely to do with plans for formulation of war.
From this point of view, I task the Tribunal tp permit the calling of the witness that I mentioned in brief. I state explicitly that this discussion has not answered the question: When did the conspiracy begin?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I don't want to repeat any general argument. My desire is that Dr. Horn should know what case Ribbentrop has to meet, and I have already stated that, but I want to make it quite clear.
According to the entry in Das Archiv, Ribbentrop entered the service of the Nazi Party in 1930, and between 1930 and January 1933 was one of the instruments and vehicles by which the accession of the Nazi Party to power took place. That semi-official publication says that some meetings between Hitler and von Papen and the Nazis and representatives of President von Hindenburg took place in his house at Bergenthalen. That is the first point. It is quite clear and it is all set out in the transcript.
The, second stage is that he held certain offices between 1934 and 1936 that show that he was an important and rising Nazi politician and negotiator in the realm of foreign affairs. In 1936 he justified the action of Germany in breaking the Versailles Treaty. The defendant justified it before the League of Nations. Therefore, he has to meet that point.
In the same year he negotiated the Anti-Comitern Pact. He has to explain that.
From that time onwards, there are a succession of German documents, all referred to in the transcript for the 8th and 9th of January, which show exactly the part this defendant played in ten sets of aggression against ten separate countries.
I respectfully submit to the Tribunal that that is a perfectly clear case which this defendant has to meet. There is I have already summarized the case on the war crimes and crimes against no doubt about it at all.