My Lord, I am reminded that there is another point, which Mr. Barrington has just brought to may attention. These interrogatories were the basis of the Czech Government Report. They are not introduced as interrogatories butso I am told -- as part of the report by the person who drew it. It is not material that we are in a position to introduce as interrogatories. They come in as a Government Report from the Czech Government.
THE TRIBUNAL (MR. Biddle): If it should develop later that it is relevant to the occasion, could the Prosecution object to that material being introduce
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. If he can get the material, but the material is the property of the Czech Government.
MR. BIDDLE: Then your position is really that it is not in your hands, but for the Czech Government to determine it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.
MR. BIDDLE: I see
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The only other document is the Treaty between France and the Soviet Union, in 1935. This document was authorized by the General Secretary on the 29th of January, and if there is any difficulty in getting a copy, I will try to do anything I can to help, subject to the reservation as to objecting to its relevance when I know what use is going to be made of it.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: May I say a few more words? During the very last few days I have received some various inside information -- or intimations -which seem important to my defense; but I have not had any opportunity of che*---* ing such information, to find out whether it is really of importance to the conduct of the Defense. May I therefore ask, if this should be the cased and if there should be one or two other witnesses or documents which I could find later that I should be permitted to make an application supplementary to the list of witnesses and documents I have given today.
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon Counsel for the Defendant Fritzsche.
(Dr. Heinz Fritz came to the lectern.)
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, there are only two witnesses applied for in this case.
Dr. Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry. The Prosecution have no objection that witness.
With regard to the second witness, Dr. Otto Kriegk, the applications says that he received his information and instructions from the Defendant Fritzsche and he can speak as to the directive issued to journalists. On the assumption that these were more or less official directives that he gave in the course of duty, again I don't think there can be any objection from the Prosecution. But I don't know what Dr. Fritz would think about interrogatories, or whether he has any strong views about calling Dr. Kriegk on that point. As I understand it, it would be more or less of a synopsis of the directives given, but in view of the very modest proportions of the applications in this case, I don't want to be unreasonable, if there is any special reason for calling Dr. Kriegk.
DR. FRITZ: I have presented a very small list of proof and I would be grateful if the personal appearance of the second witness, Dr. Kriegk were granted, and that for the following reasons: First, the witness von Schirmeister has been named because he can give us information about the internal task which the Defendant Fritzsche had in the Ministry for Propaganda, especially about his relations to Dr. Goebbels. Concerning the daily press conferences which the Defendant Fritzsche held, this first witness, von Schirmeister did not take part in them. However, if is important which directives the Defendant Fritzsche has given to the journalists, specifically the most important German journalists who were assembled daily at the press conferences. witness be granted, I should like to point out that out of the list of documents, One and Two of my list are not yet available to me, so that there are various points which I would like to have covered with quotations from these documents -- which can be done by questioning these two witnesses, the only one I have named.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don't press the point of an affidavit. I leave it to the Tribunal.
With regard to the documents, No. 1 is the broadcasts of the Defendant Fritzsche, and there is obviously no objection from the Prosecution to that.
No. 2 is the archives of the section, "German Express Service." And again we make no objection at this stage. We will perhaps have to consider the reports when we get them. letters which contain objective observations of the composers about the acts of the Defendant Fritzsche. If these are official reports or anything or that kind, of course there would be no objection if they were contemporaneous, but the course which the Prosecution respectfully suggests to the Tribunal is that we wait and see these in the document book and then we can consider them and take proper exception when they come up.
DR. FRITZ: I completely and heartily agree to the documents under Point One and point 2. I have nothing important to say, after the statement Sir David has made.
THE PRESIDENT: It would be convenient to deal with them now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: Perhaps Your Lordship will allow me the indulgence of conferring with my colleagues as we deal with each one, as we go along, in case they have any further views to express.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
I think there are some supplementary applications by Dr. Seidl.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hess): Mr. President and Your Honors: On the 28th of February, 1946, I submitted to the Tribunal a supplementary application for the Defendant Rudolf Hess. The application became necessary for the following reasons: In my first application I mentioned the witness Boehle for a number of subjects, among others for the activity of the German Ausland Institute and for the activity of the VDA. Then I made that application to question the witness Boehle I had not had any opportunity to speak to the witness. After the approval by the Tribunal, however, I did so, and I found out that the witness Boehle, although he can make very concrete statements about the Ausland organization, did not have any immediate first-hand information about the activity of the German Ausland Institute and the activity of the VDA.
I therefore ask to approve as further witnesses, first, Dr. Karl Stroelin, former Lord Mayor of Stuttgard, last President of the German Auslandsinstitut.
The witness is here in Nurnberg in prison, and it is the same witness who has also been named by the defendant Von Neurath in his case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps it would be convenient, My Lord, if Dr. Seidl would indicate what the final position of these witnesses is. As I understand it, he no longer wants Herr Bohle. Is that right? I am not clear whether this witness is in addition to or in substitution for Herr Bohle.
DR. SEIDL: With regard to the witness Dr. Stroelin, that should be an additional witness. The witness Bohle will still be needed as a witness, but only concerning the matter of the activity of the Ausland Organization, the Organization in Foreign Countries. The witness Stroelin, besides the witness Bohle, who has no first hand information about the Auslandeinstitut, should speak about this latter point.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I understand it, that would mean that Dr. Seidl is now asking for Herr Bohle, Herr Stroelin, Dr. Haushofer, and an affidavit, I think it is, from Alfred Hess. on what is, perhaps, a narrower point than Dr. Seidl realizes, from the point of view of the Prosecution. The Prosecution said that the Foreign Organization was used for promoting fifth column activities, but it was only put in this way: That by using the Foreign Organization there was, first of all, complete record and organization of Party memebers abroad; secondly, the intelligence service of that organization, through the organization, reported on all German officials of every section of the government who came abroad and kept check on them In their work, in addition to German subjects, and by reason of providing that intelligence service, they were ready for use, and in fact were used when there was a question of invasion of the country. up bridges or commit acts of sabotage given direct to the organization, which is a matter of inference from the functioning of the organization that I have described.
I only do that because it should be helpful to Dr. Seidl to know the case he has to meet. The Prosecution has never proved direct orders for sabotage in this regard.
DR. SEIDL: The Trail Brief has accused Rudolf Hess of the fact that under his leadership, organizations of the National Socialist Party, as well as the Auslandsinstitut and the Volksbund had an activity which was equal to that of a fifth column. It is correct that on the occasion of the presentation of the Prosecution against the Defendant Hess, there were no details showing wherein the Prosecution followed this activity by Hess with relation to the activities of these organizations. the Volksbund are accused of any connection with the activities of a fifth column, the Defendant Hess has a reasonable interest to see that first, it is shown what kind of activity these organizations had, second, which orders or directives he had given to these organizations. regarding these organizations. The same is necessary about the Auslandsinstitut, where Dr. Stroelin, who is here in Nurnberg at the present time, can make authentic statements, and with regard to the Volksbund fuer das Deutschtum in Ausland, the witness Dr. Haushofer. Dr. Haushofer, that only an interrogatory be sent to this witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to interrogatories as far as Dr. Haushofer is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one more you want?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, sir, a third one. Before I come to the third witness, whom I wish to name as an additional witness, I would like to inform the Tribunal that I do not insist on the personal hearing of the witness Ingeborg Sperr, who has already been approved by the Court. Instead of that, I shall submit a short affidavit, which is already in the document book and which I have given to the General Secretary for translation. Alfred Leitgen. Leitgen was for many years, until the flight of Rudolf Hess to England, his adjutant.
only now where this witness is. I believe that the examination of this witness--that is, the personal examination of this witness--is so important that one can not forego it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The two points on which Dr. Seidl specifies, both seem to be relevant points, and in view of the fact that he is prepared to drop the calling of the secretary, the Prosecution will not take objection to that witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any more applications?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if Your Lordship will allow me to say one thing. Dr. Servatius has already had certain conversations with a member of my staff. I think they will prove profitable and helpful on the lines that Your Lordship suggested, and if the Tribunal will be good enough to safeguard Dr. Servatius' rights for a day or two, we hope to have something practical and useful to put before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean with reference to the organizations?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, with reference to the Defendant Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will remember that you allowed the matter to stand over. We have been working along the lines that Your Lordship suggested, but I am afraid that I have not had time to go into it myself and see the final result.
THE PRESIDENT: I See.
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel): In discussing the witnesses I have to make a limiting suggesting, which I will make later. Concerning the documents, I have also made an agreement as to how they should be handled. There are, however, two principal applications which I should like to submit and which have not been mentioned so far, so that a decision may be taken by the Tribunal. The applications are documents 80 and 81.
had been given in the town of Oels by the local commander, whereby the native population had to report to be deported, and it can be seen from this order that it is deportation for the purpose of labor.
I would like to submit this to show that the agreement of the Hague concerning land warfare has been considered obsolete by the Soviet authorities. I should like to apply that the Tribunal should make use of Article 17-A of the Charter and try to get the decision by a local judge as to how far this deportation took place and at the same time I should like to clarify that it is not only the town Oels, but that it was done in a large measure in East Prussia likewise. The population in a large number was deported or transported away to work and, if the information which I have received is correct, part of the population of Koenigsburg is today still in the Ural Mountains. I am not in a position to submit documents about all these things, because of the difficulties of mailing, difficulties to receive information, to receive news, but the Tribunal should be in a position by asking the mayors and other officials to find out that what I have just said is correct. Czechoslovakia. There 10,000 inhabitants were put into a camp and until Christmas, 1945, they have worked without pay. I believe that also is proof for the fact that the regulations of the Hague concerning land warfare is considered to be obsolete.
Furthermore, Documents 90 and 91. These are two small books with affidavits as a substitute for a long case. It would be irrelevant if I would produce one or two of these affirmations concerning conditions in the labor camps. One could object to that as being irrelevant because, with regard to the large number, there is little proof that they are affirmations of that kind. Those mass incidents of mass conditions have to be considered in a juridical sense. Therefore, the Charter admits government reports. I am not in a position to ask the government for reports. Therefore I have to try to counteract this by collecting affidavits and by grouping them in a sensible form to submit them to the Tribunal. Therefore, I apply for a presentation of proof which may be new but the same objections are in order here that one could have against an investigation.
An investigation has great weaknesses, especially if it was conducted in a one-sided manner without participation of the other side. In the case of my affirmation and affidavits this danger is greatly reduced because it is hard to find somebody who would sign these affidavits except if he has very serious reasons to do so. I therefore ask the Tribunal to decide about my application concerning these two documents. That is all I wanted to say at this time and which I shall discuss with the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I have already intimated the grounds on which the Prosecution object to Documents 80 and 81. To test their admissibility the easiest way is to assume that Dr. Servatius has proved the facts alleged and, if that is done, they would not in my submission come within miles of proving that Article 52 had become obsolete, and it is illustrative of the danger which I ventured to point out to the Tribunal on these two arguments on that vague and hypothetical suggestion that it might be some evidence that Article 52 had become obsolete.
It is suggested that the Tribunal should try the conducts of the Soviet Union with regard to labor condition and, as I understand send a commission to collect evidence on that point, and I do nut want to repeat the arguments, but the Prosecution most strenuously object to the suggestion aid say that nothing has been indicated which provides any basis for it.
Soviet ambulando (?). Let us see the affidavits and get some idea of their contents and the means of knowledge disclosed and then the Prosecution can make submission upon them. At this state I don't want to do anything to exclude them and they will receive the most careful attention by my colleagues and myself when they are brought forward.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told that there are other supplementary applications for the defendant Schacht and for the defendant Keitel. I think there may be some mistake about that.
Is the defendant Hermann's counsel here?
DR. BERGOLD (Counsel for Defendant Bormann): Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to deal with anything yet?
DR. BERGOLD: No.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal made an order that your applications would extend over for some application within the next three weeks. So you are not ready yet? I am told your documents are all here. Is that so?
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, my documents are here, as far as I knew. However, since I could only construct my information and get it from books myself, I cannot tell the Tribunal whether these will be all my documents. I have asked to speak to the Secretary Mundally (?), and only then I will not the final information. Bormann cannot be found. Therefore, for practical reasons, I should like to present everything at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the Tribunal will now -- I am told that there are application from the defendant Keitel, Rosenberg-
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, defense counsel for Keitel and Rosenberg are not present at this time. They probably did not expect that their applications could be presented today. Maybe that could be done tomorrow before the beginning of the case Goering.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will now adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 8 March 1946 at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: I have three announcements to make. to the Prosecution the exact passages in all documents which they propose to use, in order that the Prosecution may have an opportunity to object to irrelevant passages. In the event of disagreement between the Prosecution and the Defense as to relevancy of any particular passage, the Tribunal will decide what passages are sufficiently relevant to be translated. Only the cited passages need be translated, unless the Prosecution require translation of the entire document.
Second, the Tribunal has received an application from Dr. Nelte, Counsel for the defendant Keitel, inquiring whether a defendant, in order to support his memory, may make use of written notes while giving oral evidence. The Tribunal sanctions the use of written notes by the defendant in those circumstances, unless in special cases the Tribunal orders otherwise. administer interrogatories to or obtain an affidavit from a witness who will be called to give oral evidence on behalf of another defendant. If the witness gives his oral evidence before the case is heard in which the interrogatory or affidavit is to be offered, Counsel in the latter case must elicit the evidence by oral examination, instead of using the interrogatory or affidavit.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for defendant Keitel): Mr. President, in yesterday afternoon's session, we mentioned the testimony application nuber two, which I had submitted, was not explained orally. Is that so? I would like to put the question whether that was correct. I was not present in the afternoon's session and would like to be informed.
We are interested in the subsequent clarification regarding the witnesses Westhoff and Wielen.
Both of these witnesses had already been granted me in open Tribunal session. I only submitted these names again so that my application for proof might be complete and comprehensive. already been granted me by the High Tribunal, and I believe, therefore, that I do not need to clarify my request for the addition of these witnesses, and that the Prosecution may not see fit to object.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Nelte, General Westhoff and Wielen haveaalready been granted to you, and there is no need for any further application.
DR. NELTE: Is Stuckhart also granted me, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Westhoff and Wielen have been granted to you, and there is no need for any further application. I am afraid it is difficult to carry all of these names in one's memory. I think that Stuckhart has been granted to you.
DR. NELTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told he has been.
DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President, at yesterday afternoon's session, my name was also mentioned in the following connection. I had submitted written motions and I was to present them orally as well. I assume that we are concerned with the Written request or motion which I covered in my document and witness list, and in a rather lengthy written application, I requested that I might have permission to quote rather lengthy quotations from philosophical works, as far as Rosenberg is concerned, and to use them as evidence for my client, and I beg Your Honor whether this written request was the one that was covered in yesterday afternoon's session.
I would like to repeat, MR. President, I was asked yesterday that I was to submit an oral request in addition to the one that I had made in writing, and I would like to know whether it was the written request that I put in with my request for witnesses and documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, so far as the Tribunal knows, everything will be covered by the written order which the Tribunal will make upon your application. It is not convenient, really, to deal with these matters now by way of oral requests, but everything that is in your written application will be covered by a written order of the Tribunal.
It will be subject of course, to the order which I have renounced this morning, in order to secure that there will be no more translation than in absolutely necessary.
DR. STAHMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering): Mr. President and gentlemen of the bench, before I will start with my presentation, I beg to request two more probative value materials. I am fully cognizant of the fact that any such request should be put in writing, but I would like to have your decision whether I should put these motions now or whether the High Tribunal wishes a written request on my part.
THE PRESIDENT: You may put your request now verbally, but we would prefer to have them in writing afterwards as soon as possible.
DR. STAHMER: I would like to call Major Buetz, who is interned at Nurnberg as a witness for the following facts: Reichsmarshall Goering has repeatedly stated in the summer of 1945 that he opposed the measures which Hitler was taking against aviators and these terror attacks. He knows that neither from the Luftwaffe nor from the Wehrmacht any orders had come which would cover Hitler's orders regarding the treatment of terror aviators.
Now at last we can prove the following points: An officer of the Luftwaffe in May of 1944 at Munich protected a flyer which had been shot down, protected him against lynching which masses of people wanted to do to him. Hitler, who had knowledge of this incident, demanded of Goering the name of this officer and his punishment. Goering knew the name of this officer and on repeated questioning on the part of Hitler, Goering did not give the name of this officer and protected him in that manner, and this motion regarding the witness Buetz is concerned with this case. cerned with the following: showed that a German military formation called "Stab 537" Pioneer Battalion shot many, many Polish prisoners of war in the forests hear Katyn. The responsible leaders of this formation were mentioned as Arenz, Rex, and Hott, all of them lieutenants. And as proof the Prosecution referred to Document USSR 64. It is an official report of the Extraordinary Commission which was concerned with the investigation of the well-known facts of the matter Katyn.
The document itself has not been received by me. On the basis of the publication of this speech by the Prosecution in the press, members of the staff of the Heeresgruppe Mitte announced that they knew of this, and Staff 537 was connected with Heeresgruppe Mitte and was stationed or situated not far from this camp. This is about forty-five kilometers away. These people stated that the information upon which the Prosecution made the foregoing statement was not ture and the following witnesses are mentioned: Chief of Armament and Leader of the Auxilliary Forces; First Lieutenant Rex, probably taken prisoner of war at Stalingrad; then, third, Lieutenant Hott, who probably became a prisoner of war at or near Koenigsberg, that is, a Russian prisoner of war; General Major of Intelligence Troops, Eugen Oberhauser, probably an American prisoner of war; General Graf Berg, later Ordnance Officer with Field Marshal Kluge, as an English prisoner of war in Canada. Other members of the accused formation are to be mentioned later. I wish to call these witnesses so that the conclusion drawn by the Prosecution from the above-mentioned statements covering guilt or coguilt by the defendant Goering is not justified. to put another request for evidence, Professor Nahwiel at the University of Geneva, a professor and medical man. At that time he worked with an international commission at Smolensk, performed autopsies, and could tell from the remains in the pockets of these corpses and from other things about these bodies that the measures had already been performed in the year 1940.
THE PRESIDENT: If you will put in those requests in writing, the Tribunal will consider them.
DR. STAHMER: And now will I begin.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one minute. Dr. Stahmer, if you would communicate your written application to the Prosecution, they would then be able to make a written statement if they have any objection to it. You will do that as soon as possible.
Let us have both your written application and the Prosecution's answer to it.
DR. STAHMER: The Tribunal has ordered in its decision of December 11, 1945, that the defense is entitled to be heard only once. This shall take place only after the conclusion of the hearing of the evidence. The Tribunal decided some time later that explanatory words may be permitted at the present part of the trial in connection with the presentation of documents by the defense. The witnesses have already been named by me. A decision has been made concerning their admission and they will be called in the course of the proceedings. I wish to call a witness shortly but before I do that, I wish to make the following comments to the documents to which I shall refer during my final speech:
The Prosection has charged the defendant repeatedly with the violation of the Treaty of Versailles, but this charge is not justified in the opinion of the defense.
Detailed statements on this question belong to the concluding speech of the defense and will therefore be dealt with there. documents which will be used to prove the contention that the Tready of Versailles was not violated by Germany but that Germany was no longer bound by it. basis of that treaty, are commonly known, and therefore do not need further proof, according to Paragraph 21 of the Charter.
The Treaty of Versailles has already been submitted to the Tribunal. It was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt 1919, Page 687. Out of this Treaty of Versailles, Article 8 and Part V of this treaty are important for its interpretation. These provisions are reproduced in the Document book. I quote the first four paragraphs of Article 8:
"The members of the League profess the principle that the maintenance of peace requires a decrease of national armaments to a minimum which is compatible with national security and with the enforcement of international obligations by joint actions.
"The Council will draw up the plans for disarmament under consideration of the geographical location and the particular conditions of each state and will submit them to the various governments for examination and decision.
"Every ten years these plans are to be subjected to a re-examination and possibly a revision.
"The limits of armaments decided upon in such a manner must not be exceeded without the consent of the Council after their acceptance by the various governments."
"In order to render possible a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany agrees to comply strictly with the regulations for the ground, naval and air forces as set forth." signatories of the pact were bound to disarm likewise. However, Germany was committed to start disarmament first.
Germany completely fulfilled this commitment.
On the 17th of February 1927, Marshall Foch stated: "I can assure you that Germany has actually disarmed." to disarm. As they did not disarm, Germany was no longer bound by the pact according to general principles of law, and she was justified in renouncing her obligation. by French as well as by English statesmen. Therefore, I should like to refer to the speech made by Paul Boncour on April 8, 1937, in which Boncour stated as follows: I quote from Document Book 1, Page 28.
"It is correct that the introduction to Part V of the Treaty of Versailles concerns the limitation of armaments, which was imposed on Germany as a prerequisite and as the forerunner of a general limitation of armaments. This brings out very clearly the difference between the armament restrictions of Germany and other similar armament restrictions, which in the course of history have been imposed after the conclusion of wars. This time these regulations and in this lies their entire value - have been imposed not only on one of the signatories to the treaty, but they are rather a duty, a moral and legal responsibility for the other signatories to proceed with a general limitation of armaments." on the 7th of November 1927, in which he points out the memorandum to the skeleton note of June 1919. I quote from the document book 1, Page 26:
"A document which we handed Germany as a solemn pledge on the part of Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, and 20 other nations to follow Germany's example after she was disarmed." bitter injustice, but there were numerous voices in foreign countries that called the treaty exceedingly unfair for Germany. I am quoting the following from Rothermere's "Warnings and Prophecies," Document Book 1, Page 30:
"Germany was justified in feeling that she had been betrayed in Versailles under the pretext -
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: (Interposing) I just call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that the documents which are now being read into the record are documents which, as I understand it, were excluded as irrelevant by the Tribunal when that matter was before it before.
They are matters of a good deal of public notoriety and would not be secret if they were not in evidence; but I think the reading of them into the record is in violation of the Tribunal's own determination.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal had suspected that these documents had been excluded, and they have sent for the original record of their orders. But I must say now that the Tribunal expects the defendants' counsel to conform to their orders and not to read documents which they have been ordered not to read.
DR. STAHMER: Shall I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. STAHMER: Thank you. Germany was disarmed for a period of five years. From that day on which the various peace treaties were signed, encouraged a number of small States to helping the rearmament and the result was that Germany five years after this day was surrounded by a much Tighter ring of iron than five years before the world war, and it was inevitable that a German regime, which had renounced Versailles, at the first opportunity would rearm heavily, and it was evident that its weapons, diplomatically, if in the true sense of the word, were to be directed against the powers of Versailles, and in the sam way is disputed the Pact of Locarno, a breach of which the defendant is also charged with, and as far as the defense is concerned, unjustifiably. and Russia had signed a Military Assistance Pact, although the Locarno Pact provided a guarantee of the French Eastern Border, This act by France, in the opinion of Germany, was in sharp contrast to the legal situation created by the Locarno Pact. Nations on the 19th of March 1936, this opinion was expressed in the following words. I quote from document book 1, page 32. "....But it is also clear that if a world power ---"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, I have before me know the order of the Tribunal of the 26th of February 1946, and paragraph 4 of that order is in the following terms: "The following documents are denied as irrelevant", and then the heading "Goering", and the fourth of the document is the speech by Paul Boncour on the 8th of April 1927, and the sixth is the speech by Lloyd George on the 7th of November 1927, which you have not read but which you have put in your trial brief. I would again call your attention, and the attention of all the defense counsel, to the fact that they will not be allowed to read any document which has been denied by the Tribunal. Go on.