At dawn on March 15, German troops poured into Czechoslovakia from all sides. Hitler issued an order of the day to the armed forces and a proclamation to the German people, which stated succinctly "Czechoslovakia has ceased to exist."
On the following day, in contravention of Article 81 of the Treaty of Versailles, Czechoslovakia was formally incorporated into the German Reich under the name of "The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia." The Decree is Document TC 51, another of the Documents which the British delegation will present to the Tribunal later in this week. It was signed in Prague on 16th March 1939, by Hitler, Lammers, and the Defendants Frick and von Ribbentrop.
I should like to quote the first sentence of this Decree. "The Bohemian and Moravian countries belonged for a millennium to the Lebensraum "living space" of the German people." The remainder of the decree sets forth in bleak detail the extent to which Czechoslovakia henceforth was subjected to Germany. A German Protector was to be appointed by the German Fuehrer for the so-called "Procectorate", the Defendant von Neurath. God deliver us from such protectors!! The German Government assumed charge of their foreign affairs and of their customs and of their excises. It was specified that German garrisons and military establishments would be maintained in the Protectorate. At the same time the extremist leaders in Slovakia who, at German Nazi insistence, had done so much to undermine the Czech State found that the independence of their week-old State was itself in effect qualified.
I offer in evidence Document 1439 PS as Exhibit USA -- I need not offer that. I think it is a decree in the Reichsgesetzblatt, of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice, and it is identified as our Document 1439 PS. It appears at page 606, 1939, Reichsgesetzblatt, part two.
The covering declaration is signed by the Defendant Ribbentrop, Minister of Foreign Affairs; and then there is a heading 'Treaty of Protection to be extended by the German Reich to the State of Slovakia."
"The German Government and the Slovakian Government have agreed, after the Slovakian State has placed itself under the protection of the German Reich, to regulate by treaty the consequences resulting from this fact. For this purpose, the undersigned representatives of the two Governments have agreed on the following provisions:
"Article 1. The German Reich undertakes to protect the political independence of the State of Slovakia and integrity of its territory.
"Article 2. For the purpose of making effective the protection undertaken by the German Reich, the German armed forces shall have the right, at all times, to construct military installations and to keep them garrisoned in the strength they deem necessary, in an area delimited on its Western side by the frontiers of the State of Slovakia, and on its eastern side by a line formed by the eastern rims of the Lower Carpathians, the White Carpathians, and the Javernik Mountains." Then I skip. "The Government of Slovakia will organize its military forces in close agreement with the German armed forces. I also offer in evidence Document 2793-PS.
THE PRESIDENT:Wouldn't that be a convenient time to break off. I understand, too, that it would be for the convenience of the Defense Counsel if the Tribunal adjourn for an hour and a quarter rather than for an hour at midday, and accordingly, the Tribunal will retire at 12:45 and sit again at 2:00.
(Whereupon a short recess was called at 1130 hours).
MRALDERMAN: (continuing): May it please the Tribunal, this secret protocal between Germany and Slovakia provided for close economic and financial collaboration between Germany and Slovakia. Mineral resources and sub-soil rights were placed at the disposal of the German Government.
I offer in evidence Document 2793-PS, Exhibit U.S.A. 120, and from it I read Paragraph 3:
"Investigation, development and utilization of the Slovak natural resources.
In this respect the basic principle is that, inso far as they are not needed to meet Slovakia's own requirements, they should be placed in first line at Germany's disposal. The entire soil research" -- Bodenforschung is the German word -- "will be placed under the Reichagency for soil-research." That is the Reichsstelle fuer Bodenforschung. "The government of the Slovak State will soon start an investigation to determine whether the present owners of concessions andprivileges have fulfilled the industrial obligations prescribed by law and it will cancel concessions and privileges in cases where these duties have been neglected."
In their private conversations the Nazi conspirators gave abundant evidence that they considered Slovakia a mere puppet state--in effect a German possession.
I offer in evidence Document R-100 as Exhibit U.S.A. 121. This document is a memorandum of information given by Hitler to von Brauchitsch on 25 March 1939. Much of it deals with problems arising from recently occupied Bohemia and Moravia and Slovakia. I quote beginning at the sixth paragraph:
"Col. Gen. Keitel shall inform Slovak Government via Foreign Office that it would not be allowed to keep or garrison armed Slovak units (Hlinka Guards) on this side of the border formed by the river Waag. They shall be transferred to the new Slovak territory. Hlinka Guards should be disarmed.
"Slovak shall be requested via Foreign Office to deliver to us against payment any arms we want and which are still kept in Slovakia. This request is to be based upon agreement made between Army and Czech troops. For this payment these millions should be used which we will pour anyhow into Slovakia.
"Czech Protectorate:
"H. Gr."--the translator's note indicates that that probably means army groups, but I can't vouch for it--"shall be asked again whether the request shall be repeated again for the delivery of all arms within a stated time limit and under the threat of severe penalties.
"We take all war material of former Czechoslovakia without paying for it. The guns bought by contract before 15 February, though, shall be paid for. Bohemia and Moravia have to make annual contributions to the German treasury. Their amount shall be fixed on the basis of the expenses earmarked formerly for the Czech army."
The German conquest of Czechoslovakia, in direct contravention of the Munich agreement, was the occasion for formal protest by the British and French Governments. These documents, No. TC 52 and TC 53, dated 17 March, 1939, will be presented to the Tribunal by the British Prosecutor.
On the same day, 17 March 1939, the Acting Secretary of State of the United States Government issued a statement, which I will offer in evidence and I invite the Court to take judcial notice of the entire volume, Document 2862-PS--as Exhibit U.S.A. 122, which is an excerpt from the official volume entitled "Peace and War:
United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941," issued under the seal of the Department of State of the United States of America. Incidentally, this volume which happens to be my own copy-- and I hope I can get another one-- I am placing in evidence, because I am quite certain that in its study of the background of this whole case the Court will be very much interested in this volume, which is a detailed chronological history of all the diplomatic events leading up to and through the Second World War of 1941. But what I am actually offering in evidence at the moment appears on pages 454 and 455 of the volume, a statement by the Acting Secretary of State Wells, dated 17 March 1939:
"The Government of the United States has on frequent occasions stated its conviction that only through international support of a program of order based upon law can world peace be assured.
"This Government, founded upon and dedicated to the principles of human liberty and of democracy, cannot refrain from making known this country's condemnation of the acts which have resulted in the temporary extinguishment of the liberties of a free and independant people with whom, from the day when the Republic of Czechoslovakia attained its independence, the people of the United States have maintained specially close and friendly relations.
"The position of the Government of the United States has been made consistently clear. It has emphasized the need for respect for the sanctity of treaties and of the pledged word, and for non-intervention by any nation in the domestic affairs of other nations; and it has on repeated occasions expressed its condemnation of a policy of military aggression.
"It is manifest that acts of wanton lawlessness and of arbitrary force are threatening the world peace and the very structure of modern civilization. The imperative need for the observance of the principles advocated by this Government has been clearly demonstrated by the developments which have taken place during the past three days."
With Czechoslovakia in German hands, the Nazi conspirators had accomplished the program they had set themselves in the meeting in Berlin on 5 November 1937. You will recall that this program of conquest was intended to shorten their frontiers, to increase their industrial and food reserves, and to place them in a position, both industrially and strategically, from which they could launch more ambitious and more devastating campaigns of aggression. I less than a year and a half this program had been carried through to the satisfaction of the Nazi leaders, and at that point I would again invite the Court's attention to the large chart on the wall. I think it is no mere figure of speech to make reference to the wolf's head, what is known in Anglo-American law as caput lupinum.
The lower jaw formed near Austria was taken - the red part on the first chart - 12 March 1938. Czechoslovakia thereby was encircled, and the next step was the absorption of the mountainous part, the Sudetenland, indicated on the second chart in red. On 1 October 1938 Czechoslovakia was further encircled and its defences weakened, and then the jaws clamped in, or the pincers, as I believe General Keitel or General Jodl called them -- I believe it was General Jodl's diary and you see what they do to Czechoslovakia. On 15 March 1939 the borders were shortened, new bases were acquired, and then Czechoslovakia was destroyed. Bohemia and Moravia are in black and Slovakia in what might be called light tan. But I have read to you the documents which showed in what condition Slovakia was left; and with the German military installations in Slovakia, you see how completely the southern border of Poland was flanked, as well as the Western border, the stage being set for the next aggression, which the British Prosecutor will describe to you.
Of all the Nazi conspirators the Defendant Goering was the most aware of the economic and strategic advantages which would accrue from the possession by Germany of Czechoslovakia.
I now offer in evidence Document 1301-PS, which is a rather large file, and we offer particularly Item 10 of the document, at page 25 of the English translation.
I offer it as Exhibit U.S.A. 123, Page 25 of the English translation contained the Top Secret minutes of a conference with Goering in the Luftwaffe Ministry, the Air Ministry. The meeting which was held on 14 October 1938, just two weeks after the occupation of the Sudetenland, was devoted to the discussion of economic problems. As of that date, the Defendant Goering's remarks were somewhat prophetic. I quote from the third paragraph, from the bottom of page 26 of the English translation:
"The Sudetenland has to be exploited with all the means. General Field Marshal Goering counts upon a complete industrial assimilation of the Slovakia. Czech and Slovakia would become German dominions. Everything possible must be taken out. The Oder-Danube Canal has to be speeded up. Searches for oil and ore have to be conducted in Slovakia, notably by State Secretary Keppler."
In the Summer of 1939, after the incorporation of Bohemia and Moravia into the German Reich, Defendant Goering again revealed the great interest of the Nazi leaders in Czech economic potential.
I offer in evidence Document R-133, as Exhibit U.S.A. 124. This document is a minute, dated Berlin
THEPRESIDENT: 133, isn't it?
MR. ALDERMAN:Yes, R-133, dated Berlin, 27 July 1939, signed by Muller, of a conference between Goering and a group of officials from the OKW and from other agencies of the German Government, concerned with war production. This meeting had been hold two days previously, on 25 July. I read, the first part of the account of this meeting.
"In a rather long statement the Field Marshal explained that the incorporation of Bohemia and Moravia into the German economy had taken place, among other reasons, to increase the German War potential, by exploitation of the industry there. Letters, such as the decree of the Reich Minister for Economics - S 10 402/39 of 10 July 1939 - as well as a letter with similar meaning to the Junkers firm, which might possibly lower the kind and extent of the armament measures in the Protectorate are contary to this principle. If it is necessary to issue such directives, this should he done only with his consent.
In any case, he insists, (that is defendant Goering insists) in agreement with the directive by Hitler, that the war potential of the protectorate is definitely to be exploited in part or in full and is to be directed towards mobiliza tion as soon as possible."
In addition to strengthening the Nazi economic potential for the wars of aggression, the conquest of Czechoslovakia provided the Nazis with new bases from which to wage their next war of aggression, the attack on Poland.
You will recall the minutes of the conference between Goering and a pro-Nazi Slovak delegation in the winter of 1938-1939.
Those minutes are Document 2801-PS, which I introduced into evidence earlier, as Exhibit U.S.A. 109.
You will recall the best sentence of those minutes, a statement of Defendant Goering's gonclusions.
I quote this sentence again.
"Air bases in Slovakia are of great importance for the German Air Force for use against the East."
I now offer in evidence Document 1874 PS, as Exhibit U.S.A. 125. This document is the German minutes of a conference between Defendant Goering and Mussolini and Ciano on 15 April 1939, one month after the conquest of Czechoslovakia.
In this conference, Goering told his junior partners in the Axis of the progress of German preparations for war.
He compared the strength of Germany with the strength of England and France.
Not unnaturally, he mentioned the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, in this connection.
I read two para graphs of these thoughts, on page 4, paragraph 2 of the German minutes.
THE PRESIDENT:Which document is this?
MR. ALDERMAN:It is 1874 PS.
"However, the heavy armament of Czechoslovakia shows, in any case, how dangerous this could hve been, even after Munich, in the event of a serious conflict.
Because of German action, the situation of both Axis countries was ameliorated, among other reasons, because of the economic possibilities which resulted from the transfer to Germany of the great production capacity of Czechoslovakia.
That contributes toward a considerable strengthening of the A xis against the Western powers.
"Furthermore, Germany now need not keep ready a single division for protection against that country in case of bigger conflict.
This too, is an advantage by which both Axis countries will, in the last analysis, benefit."
Then on page 5, paragraph 2 of the German version:
"The action taken by Germany in Czechoslovakia is to be viewed as an advantage for the Axis in case Poland should finally join the enemies of the Axis powers.
Germany could then attack this country from two flanks and would be within only twenty-five minutes flying distance from the new Polish industrial center, which had been moved further into the interior of the country, nearer to the other Polish industrial districts because of its proximity to the border."
Now, by the turn of events, it is located gain in the proximity of the border.
And that flanking on two fronts is illustrated on the four segment chart.
I think the chart itself demonstrates, better than any oral argument, the logic and cold calculation, the deliberation of each step to this point of the German aggression.
More than that, it demonstrates what I might call, the master fight of the aggressive war case, that is that each conquest of the Nazi conspirators was deliberately planned as a stepping stone to new and more ambitious aggression.
You will recall the words of Hitler, at the conference in the Reich chancellery on 23 May 1939, when he was planning the Polish campaign, Document L-79, Exhibit Number U.S.A.27.
I quote from it.
"The period which lies behind us has, indeed, been put to good use.
All measures have been taken in the correct sequence and in harmony with our aims."
It is appropriate to refer to two other speeches of the Nazi leaders.
In his lecture in Munich on 7 November 1943, the Defendant Jodl spoke as follows, and I quote from pare 5 of Document L-172, already received in evidence as Exhibit U.S.A.34; on page 8 of the German text:
"The bloodless solution of the Czech conflict in the autumn of 1938 and spring of 1939 and the annexation of Slovakia rounded off the territory of Greater Germany in such a way that it now became possible to consider the Polish problem on the basis of more or less favorable strategic premises In the speech to his military commanders on 23 November 1939, Hitler des cribed the process by which he had rebuilt the military poser of the Reich, this is our Document 789-PS, Exhibit U.S.A.23.
I quote one passage from the second paragraph:
"The next step was Bohemia, Moravia and Poland. This step also was not possible to accomplish in one campaign.
First of all, the western fortifica tions had to be finished.
It was not possible to reach to goal in one effort It was clear to me, from the first moment, that I could not be satisfied with the Sudeten German territory.
That was only a partial solution. The decision to march into Bohemia was made.
Then followed the erection of the Protectorate and with that, the basis for the action against Poland was laid.
Before I leave the subject of the aggression against Czechoslovakia, I should like to submit to the Court a document which became available to us too late to be included in our Document Book.
It reached me Saturday, late in the afternoon or late at night.
This is an official document, again from the Czechoslovakian Government, a supplement to the Czechoslovakian report, which I had previously offered in evidence.
I now offer it, identified as Document 3061-PS, as Exhibit U.S.A.126.
The document was furnished us, if the Court please, in the German text with an English translation, which didn't seem to us quite adequate and we have had it retranslated into English and the translation has just been passe up, I believe, to the Tribunal.
. That mimeographed translation should be appended to our Document Book "0".I shall not read the reports it is about twelve pages long.
The Court will take judicial notice of it, under the provisions of the Charter.
I merely summarize.
This document gives confirmation and corroboration to the other evidence which I Presented to the Tribunal.
In particular, it offers support to the following allegations:
First, the close working relationship between Henlein and the SDP, on the one hand, and Hitler and Defendants Hess and Ribbentrop, on the other.
Second, the use of the German Legation in Prague to direct the German Fifth Column activities.
Third, the financing of the Henlein movement by agencies of the German Government, including the German diplomatic representative at Prague.
Fourth, the use of the Henlein movement to conduct espionage on direct orders from the Reich.
In addition, this document gives further details of the circumstances of the visit of President Hacha to Berlin on the night of 14 March.
It substantiates the fact that President Hacha required the medical attention of Hitler's physician and it supports the threat, which the Defendant Goering.
made to the Czech delegation.
Now, if it please the Tribunal, that concludes my presentation of what to me, has always seemed one of the saddest chapters in him an history, the rape and destruction of the frail, little nation of Czechoslovakia.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:May it please the Tribunal: Before I tender the evidence which I desire to place before the Tribunal, it might be convenient if I explained how the British case is to be divided up and who will present the different parts.
I shall deal with the general treaties. After that, my learned friend, Colonel Griffith Jones, Wail deal with Poland. Thirdly, Mr. Alvin Jones will deal with Norway and Denmark. Fourth, Mr. Roberts will deal with Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg. Fifthly, Colonel Phillimore Wail deal with Greece and Yugoslavia. After that, my friend, Mr. Alderman, of the American delegation, will deal on behalf of both delegations with the aggression against the USSR and the USA.
May I also, with the Tribunal's permission, say one word about the arrangements that we have made as to documents. Each of the Defendants' Counsel will have a copy of the Document Book, of the different Document Books, in English. In fact, 30 copies of the first four of our Document Books have already been placed in the Defendants' Information Center. We hope that the last Document Book, dealing with Greece and Jugoslavia, will have the 30 copies placed there today.
In addition, the Defendants' Counsel have at least six copies in German of every document.
With regard to My own part of the case, the first section on general treaties, all the documents on this phase are in the Reichsgesetzblatt or Die Dokumente Der Deutschen Politik, of which ten copies have been made available to the Defendants' Counsel, so that with regard to the portion with which the Tribunal is immediately concerned, the Defendants' Counsel will have at least 16 copies in German of every document referred to.
Finally, there is a copy of the Reichsgesetzblatt and Die Dokumente available for the Tribunal, other copies if they so desire, but one is placed ready for the Tribunal if any member wishes to refer to a German text.
THE PRESIDENT:Were you supposed to call any oral witnesses?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:No, My Lord, no oral witnesses.
If the Tribunal please, before I come to the first treaty I want to make three quotations to deal with a point which was mentioned in the speech of my learned friend, The Attorney General, yesterday.
It might be thought from the melancholy story of broken treaties and violated assurances, which the Tribunal has already heard, that Hitler and the Nazi Government did not even profess that it is necessary or desirable to keep the pledged word. Outwardly, however, the professions were very different. With regard to to ties, on the 18th of October, 1933, Hitler said, "Whatever we have signed we will fulfill to the best of our ability."
The Tribunal will note the reservation, "Whatever we have signed."
But, on the 21st of May 1935, Hitler said, "The German Government will scrupulously maintain every treaty voluntarily signed, even though it was concluded before their accession to power and office."
On assurances Hitler was even more emphatic. In the same speech, the Reichstag Speech on May 21, 1935, Hitler accepted assurances as being of equal obligation, and the world at that time could not know that that meant of no obligation at all.
What he actually said was, "And when I now hear from the lips of a British statesman that such assurances are nothing and that the only proof of sincerity is the signature appended to collective pacts, I must ask Mr. Eden to be good enough to remember that it is a question of an assurance in any case.
It is sometimes much easier to sign treaties with the mental reservations that one will reconsider one's attitude at the decisive hour than to declare before an entire nation and with full opportunity one's adherence to a policy which serves the course of peace because it rejects anything which leads to war."
And then he proceeds with the illustration of his assurance to France.
Never having seen the importance which Hitler wished the world to believe he attached to treaties, I shall ask the Tribunal in my part of the case to look at fifteen only of the treaties which he and the Nazis broke.
The remainder of the 69 broken treaties shown on the chart and occurring between 1933 and 1941 will be dealt with by my learned friends.
There is one final point as to the position of a treaty in German law, as I understand it.
The appearances of a treaty in the Reichsgesetzblatt makes it part of the statute law of Germany, and that is by no means an uninteresting aspect of the breaches which I shall put before the Tribunal.
The first treaty to be dealt with is the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed at the Hague on the 29th of July, 1899.
I ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the Convention, and for convenience I hand in as Exhibit GB-1 the British document, TC-1. The German reference is to the Reichsgesetzblatt for 1901, No. 44, Sections 401 to 404, and 482 and 483.
The Tribunal will find the relevant charge in Appendix C as Charge 1.As the Attorney General said yesterday, these Hague Conventions are only the first gropings towards the rejection of the inevitability of war.
They do not rend the making of aggressive war as a crime, but their milder terms were as readily broken as the more severe agreements.
On the 19 July, 1899, Germany, Greece, Serbia and 25 other nations signed a convention. Germany ratified the convention on 4 September 1900, Serbia on the 11 May, 1901, Greece on the 4 April, 1901.
By Article 12 of the treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, signed at the St. Germaine-en-Laye on 10 September, 1919, the new Kingdom succeeded to all the old Serbian treaties, and later, as the Tribunal know, changed its name to Yugoslavia, I think it is sufficient, unless the Tribunal otherwise wish, for me to read the first two articles only.
Article 1: "With a view to obviating as far as possible recourse to force in the relations between states, the signatory powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the pacific settlement of International differences."
Article 2: "In case of serious disagreement or conflict, before an appeal to arms the signatory powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly powers."
After that the Convention deals with machinery, and I don't hink, subject to any wish of "the Tribunal, that it is necessary for me to deal with it in detail.
The second treaty is the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed at the Hague on the 18th of October, 1907. Again I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this, and for convenience hand in as Exhibit GB-2 the final act of the conference at the Hague, which contains British documents TC-2, 3, and 4. The reference to this convention in German is to the Reichsgesetzblatt for 1910, Number 52, Sections 22 to 25, and the relevant charge is Charge 2.
This Convention was signed at the Hague by 44 nations, and it is in effect as to 31 nations, 28 signatories, and three adherents.
For our purpose it is in force as to the United States, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, and Poland, and Russia.
By the provisions of Article 91 it replaces the 1899 Convention as between the contracting powers. As Greece and Yugoslavia are parties to the 1899 convention and not to the 1907, the 1899 Convention is in effect with regard to them, and that explains the division of countries in Appendix C.
Again I only desire that the Tribunal should look at the first two articles.
"1: With a view to obviating as far as possible recourse to force in the relations between States, the contracting powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the pacific settlement of international differences."
Then I don't think I need trouble to read 2. It is the same article as to mediation, and again there are a number of machinery provisions.
The third treaty is the Hague Convention relative to the opening of hostilities, signed at the same time. It is contained in the exhibit which I put in. Again I ask that judicial notice be taken of it The British document is TC-3. The German reference is the Reichsgesetzblatt for 1910, Number 2, Sections 82 to 102, and the reference in Appendix C to Charge 3.
This Convention applies to Germany, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Russia. It relates to a procedural step in notifying one's prospective opponent before opening hostilities against him. It appears to have had its immediate origin in the Russo-Japanese war, 1904, when Japan attacked Russia without any previous warning. It will be noted that it does not fix any particular lapse of time between the giving of notice and the commencement of hostilities, but it does seek to maintain an absolutely minimum standard of International decency before th outbreak of war.
Again, if I might refer the Tribunal to the first article: "The contracting powers recognize that hostilities between them must not commence without a previous, and explicit warning in the form of either a declaration of war, giving reasons, or an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war."
Then there are a number again of machinery provisions, which I shall not trouble the Tribunal with.
The fourth treaty is the Hague Convention 5, respecting the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in case of war on land, signed at the same time. That is British Document TC-4, and the German reference is Reichsgesetzblatt 1910, Number 2, Sections 168 and 176. Reference in Appendix C is to Charge 4.
THE PRESIDENT:Is it necessary to give the German reference? If it is necessary for defendants' counsel, all right, but if not it needn't be done.
SID DAVID MAXWELL FIFE:If I may omit them it will save some time.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE:If any of the defendants' counsel want any specific reference perhaps they will be good enough to ask me.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
SIR DAVID-MAXWELL FYFE: Germany was an original signatory to the Convention, and the treatty is in force as a result of ratification or adherence between Germany and Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, the U.S.S.R., and the United States.
I call the attention of the Tribunal to the short content of Article 1: "The territory of neutral powers is inviolable."
A point does arise, however, on this Convention. I want to make this clear at once. Under Article 20 the provisions of the present Convention do not apply except between the contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.
As Great Britain and France entered the war within two days of the outbreak of the war between Germany and Poland, and one of these powers had not ratified the Convention, it is arguable that its provisions did not apply to the Second World War.
I do not want that the time of the Tribunal should be occupied by an argument on that point when there are so many more important treaties to be considered. Therefore, I do not press that as a charge of a breach of treaty. I merely call the attention of the Tribunal to the terms of Article 1 as showing the state of International opinion at that time and as an element in the aggressive character of the war which we are considering.
THE PRESIDENT:Perhaps this would be a good time to break off.
(Whereupon at 1245 hours the Tribunal adjourned until 1400 hours on the same day.)
Official transcript of the International Military Tribunal, in the matter of:
The United States of America, the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, against Hermann Wilhelm Goering, et al, Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 5 December, 1945, 1400-1700, Lord Justice Lawrence, presiding.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: As the Tribunal adjourned I had come to the fifth treaty, the treaty of peace between the allies and the associated powers of Germany, signed at Versailles the 28th of June, 1919. I again ask the Tribunal to take judicial recognizance of this treaty, and I again hand in for convenience Exhibit GB-3, which is a copy of the treaty, including British documents TC-5 to TC-10 inclusive. The reference in Appendix C is to Charge 5.
Before I deal with the relevant portions, may I explain very briefly the lay-out of the treaty.
Part I contains the Covenant of the League of Nations, and Part II sets the boundaries of Germany in Europe. These boundaries are described in detail.
Part II makes no provision for guaranteeing these boundaries.
Part III, Articles 31 to 117 with which the Tribunal is concerned, contains the political clauses for Europe. In it, Germany guarantees certain territorial boundaries in Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Czechoslovakia, France, Poland, Memel, Danzig, etc.
It might be convenient for the Tribunal to note at the moment the interweaving of this treaty with the next, which is the treaty for the restoration of friendly relations between the United States and Germany.
Parts I, II and III of the Versailles Treaty are not included in the United States Treaty. Parts IV, V, VI, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIV, and XV are all repeated verbatim in the United States Treaty from the Treaty of Versailles.
The Tribunal is concerned with Part V, which are the military, naval, and air clauses. Parts VII and XIII are not included in the United States Treaty.