Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-10/tgmwc-10-92.08
Last-Modified: 1999/12/16

DR. HORN: No, Mr. President, I have only cited what is in
the document book. It is on Page 88, paragraph three, and it
is specifically the paragraph that begins,

"And fourthly" -

THE PRESIDENT: Thirdly, is it not?

DR. HORN: Paragraph three, and this paragraph is again
divided into four subparagraphs and I have read the fourth
sub-paragraph.

I come now to Ribbentrop Exhibit 44, which is on Page 90 in
the document book. This document contains the German note on
Belgian inviolability, dated 13th October, 1937. This
document is of importance in view of the events of 1940, and
in order to make clear the German view I should like to read
the last paragraph,

                                                  [Page 115]

which in my document book is on Page 91, and which is
preceded by the Roman numeral two. I quote:

  "The German Government asserts that the inviolability and
  integrity of Belgium are of common interest to the
  Western powers. It confirms it's determination not to
  impair that inviolability and integrity under any
  circumstances, and to respect Belgian territory at all
  times, excepting of course, in the case of Belgium
  collaborating in an armed conflict directed against
  Germany in which Germany would be involved."

I ask that this document be given judicial notice.

With this I conclude the series of documents which are to
serve me, in my statement for the defence, as the basis for
expounding the conditions of foreign policy that Ribbentrop
found upon his entry into office as Foreign Minister. I
shall refer to these documents when the occasion arises.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you filed them in Court with the
secretary?

DR. HORN: Mr. President, in connection with yesterday's
discussion I again untied these documents and handed them,
signed, to the General Secretary.

The next document that I submit serves as substantiation of
what I shall say later regarding Ribbentrop's participation
in the policy that led to the Anschluss with Austria.

I should like to refer, first of all, to Document 386-PS,
already presented by the prosecution, which is contained in
my document book. I am unfortunately not in the position to
read off the page numbers to the Tribunal because we
ourselves have not yet received the files, that is, the
document book which now follows. This document follows
Ribbentrop Exhibit 44, which was on Page 90 of the document
book.

THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 44 is the last document in the second
document book. There are not any more, are there?

DR. HORN: I was informed today that the English document
book was finished and had been presented to the Tribunal. We
unfortunately have not yet received a copy, so I cannot
compare the page numbers.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have not got it. We have only those
two and the last exhibit in the second book in No. 44, which
you have just read. But, Dr. Horn, as the document has
already been put into evidence, it is not necessary for you
to produce it. You can say that you rely upon it. That is
all that is necessary.

DR. HORN: Yes, but I believe that we must immediately decide
the question because of the continuation of my presentation.
I want to make clear again that, after the Tribunal had
ruled on the way in which documents were to be presented, I
at once submitted my documents to the Tribunal for
translation in the prescribed way, in that I presented 6
document books bearing my signature. Unfortunately the
translation department was unable to keep up with the tempo
of the presentation of evidence by the defence and I am in
the uncomfortable position of being unable to help the
Tribunal by pointing out the pages in order to continue my
delivery smoothly.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Horn, we think you had better go on.
Just notifying us which the documents are and whether they
are already in evidence or whether you are offering them in
evidence now. You have mentioned 386-PS. We can make a note
of that - that is already in evidence. I do not know whether
all your other documents are already in evidence or whether
there are any documents which are not and which you are now
going to offer in evidence.

DR. HORN: The following documents are new. As to 386-PS, I
should only like to make clear that Ribbentrop was not one
of those who were present at that time. He has also only
just learned here of this document and its contents - it
concerns the well-known Hoszbach Document.

The next document to which I shall refer in my statement for
the defence is Document 2461-PS, already submitted by the
prosecution. It is the official

                                                  [Page 116]

German communication regarding the meeting between the
Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor with the Austrian Federal
Chancellor Dr. Schuschnigg in Berchtesgaden, on 12th and
15th February, 1938. I refer to this document to prove to
what extent Ribbentrop participated in this discussion.

The next document to which I shall refer and which I present
to the Tribunal with the request for judicial notice, is
Ribbentrop Exhibit 11, which is in my document book. This
document ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, the Tribunal does not think it is
really necessary for you to refer to any documents which are
completely in evidence already unless you are going to read
some passage in them and rely upon some passage in them
which has not already been read. I mean, supposing that the
prosecution read a particular sentence out of a particular
document and you want to refer to some other sentence in it,
then it will probably be right for you to indicate that;
but, if the document has been read in full, any further
reference is a mere matter of argument and is not really a
matter of evidence, and you will be at liberty, you see, to
argue it whenever you come to make your speech. So that, I
mean, as a matter of time saving, it would not be necessary
to refer us to 386-PS or 2461-PS unless there is some
passage in them which you rely upon and which has not been
read by the prosecution.

DR. HORN: I may then go on to Ribbentrop Exhibit 11 and
present it to the Tribunal for judicial notice. It concerns
an agreement between the German Reich Government and the
Austrian Federal Government on 11th July, 1936. When, on
12th February, 1938, Ribbentrop drove with Hitler to
Berchtesgaden to have a conference with Dr. Schuschnigg,
then Chancellor of Austria, he was not informed about the
deviation of Hitler's plans from the agreement of the year
1936 between Germany and Austria, and he conducted his
discussion with Schuschnigg in the spirit of that agreement
of 1936. One month later the Anschluss with Austria came
about.

As proof that this Anschluss corresponded to the wish of the
Austrian population, I refer to Ribbentrop Exhibit 12, which
I present to the Tribunal for judicial notice. It is the
result of the national plebiscite and of the election to the
Greater German Reichstag of 10th April, 1938. From this
document it is to be seen that at that time in Austria a
total of 4,400,000 [sic] people had the right to vote, and
of that number, only 11,000 [sic] voted against the
Anschluss.

THE PRESIDENT: Have we got this document? It is not in our
books. Has the clerk of the Court got it?

DR. HORN: It is in the document book as Ribbentrop Exhibit
12.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it goes from ten to fourteen for some
reason. Let me look at it. There is some mistake,
apparently. It has not been copied, that is all. It is not
in our books, but here it is, so it is all right. Go on.

DR. HORN: Mr. President, it is to be seen from this document
that the Austrian people at that time expressed themselves
in favour of the Anschluss with 99.73 per cent. of the votes
cast.

As the next document I submit Ribbentrop Exhibit 13 to the
Tribunal for judicial notice. I submit this document,
Ribbentrop Exhibit 13, as proof that the Anschluss would
hardly have come about by international negotiations,
according to the opinion, not only of the German Government,
but also of the English Government. I should like as proof
of this assertion to read the following from this document.
It concerns a statement by Undersecretary of State Butler
before the House of Commons, which reads as follows. (It was
made on 14th March, 1938.)

  "The English Government discussed the new situation with
  'friends of the Geneva Entente' and it was unanimously" -
  I emphasise the word unanimously - "agreed that a
  discussion in Geneva of the situation in Austria would
  not bring satisfactory results, but that the result would
  probably again
  
                                                  [Page 117]
  
  be some kind of humiliation. The Undersecretary of State
  stated that England had never assumed any special
  guarantee for the 'independence' of Austria, which had
  been forced in the treaty of St. Germain."

I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this document.
Subsequently to this the reunion of Austria with the German
Reich took place as set down in the law of 19th March, 1938,
which also was signed by Ribbentrop.

Herewith I end the submission of those documents of mine
that are related to the question of Austria. I could now -

THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Dr. Horn, the only desire of
the Tribunal is to save time and we observe from the index
in your document book that there are, I think, over three
hundred separate documents upon which you wish to rely, and
most of them appear to come from the various books, the
German White Books and these other books, which the Tribunal
provisionally allowed to you. Would not the most convenient
course be for you to put them in in bulk, saying that you
are putting in Exhibits 44 to 314, or whatever it may be,
rather than simply detail each document by its number? If
you have a particular passage which you want to read at this
moment, you can do so; but it seems to take up unnecessary
time simply to give each exhibit number, one after the
other.

DR. HORN: Very well, Mr. President, I shall mention only
those numbers which I should like to bring to judicial
attention - just mention from such and such to such and
such, when it is a matter of several numbers - and I shall
ask the Tribunal to accept them then.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. HORN: I will now turn to the question of Czechoslovakia.
The American Prosecutor stated in his presentation on this
question that this marked the end of a series of events that
struck him as one of the saddest chapters in human history -
the violation and destruction of the weak and small
Czechoslovak people. As proof that there was no Czechoslovak
people in the usual sense of the term either before or after
1939, I would like to read a few extracts from Lord
Rothermere's book "Warnings and Prophecies," which has been
expressly granted me through a ruling by the Tribunal. This
is Ribbentrop Exhibit 45.

THE PRESIDENT: Did the Tribunal allow Lord Rothermere's
book?

DR. HORN: The Tribunal has granted it to me and even put at
my disposal an English copy, which I herewith hand to the
Court.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, the question of admissibility was
to be finally determined when each book is offered in
evidence, and I think you will remember that the Tribunal
stated in one of its orders that the opinions of particular
authors upon matters of ethics, history and events would not
be admitted.

Lord Rothermere is apparently an author and was not a member
of the British Government, and therefore, unless there is
some very particular reason, it would not appear that his
books or statements in his books are in any way evidence.

DR. HORN: The paragraphs to be presented are concerned
entirely with matters of fact; and I therefore request that
the Tribunal take judicial notice of these facts. There is
no question of any polemic discussions.

THE PRESIDENT: The distinction which exists is this: The
Tribunal, under Article 21 is directed to take judicial
notice of official government documents, reports, etc. This
is not an official government document. Therefore - you say
it is factual evidence - it is not evidence for the purposes
of this Tribunal of any facts stated in it. So far as it is
facts, it is not evidence of the facts, and so far as it is
opinion, it is Lord Rothermere's opinion.

Well, Dr. Horn, can you tell me what you want to prove by
it?

DR. HORN: I should like to prove by it, first, a few
historical facts; secondly, that the difficulties of a State
composed of many nationalities, of which Czechoslovakia is
an example, led to this conflict with the German minority
and consequently with the German Government. I want to
provide you with the reasons and motives that led to the
incorporation of the Sudetenland into Germany.

                                                  [Page 118]

MR. DODD: If your honour pleases, on behalf of the United
States, I wish to object very strongly to this offer, for
the reason given by Dr. Horn - the first reason - and for
the reasons given secondly. If I understood the translation
correctly, I understood him to say that in the first place
it was offered to prove that there was no such thing as a
Czech people. I do not think that is a matter that can
properly be raised here before this Tribunal. We object that
it is out of place to offer such proof. We object
furthermore for the reasons given in the second explanation
by Dr. Horn.

DR. HORN: May I again point out that I wish to demonstrate
by this means the motives that led to the separation of the
Sudetenland in the year 1938.

If I wish to adopt an attitude toward some international
offence with which someone is charged and adjudge it, I must
also be in a position to judge of the motives underlying it.
Otherwise it is impossible for me to conduct a legal
investigation.

I may also point out that I had first of all asked the
Tribunal for documents of the League of Nations as evidence,
and I would have referred to these official documents if
this evidence had come into my possession in time, but as I
am not yet in possession of them, I have resorted to
presenting facts to the Tribunal instead.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat that, about the League of
Nations? I did not catch what you said.

DR. HORN: I have asked the League of Nations' Library for
the appropriate documents regarding minorities, which are in
the possession of the League of Nations, in order to submit
them as evidence. The office of the General Secretary is
obtaining this evidence for me, but so far I have not
received it. Consequently, I had to refer to this weaker
source of evidence, in connection with documents which are
comparable to the government reports of Article 21, or which
are themselves such reports.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you specified the passages in the book
which you wish to refer to? I mean, have you marked them
somewhere in some copy of the book?

DR. HORN: I have requested documents regarding minorities in
Czechoslovakia, as far as these questions have been decided
by legal proceedings conducted by the League of Nations and
by the International Court in The Hague. This is a
collection published by the League of Nations regarding
minority matters and constantly brought up to date. It is an
official collection of documents.

THE PRESIDENT: I was only asking you whether you had
specified the particular passages in Lord Rothermere's book
which you want to put in.

DR. HORN: I am sorry. I did not understand your question.
Could I request you to repeat it?

THE PRESIDENT: The question I asked was, whether you have
specified the particular passages in Lord Rothermere's book
which you want to use?

DR. HORN: I have marked these passages, and they are on
Pages 137, 138, 150, 151, 161 -

THE PRESIDENT: Not so fast, I want to get them down. 137,
138 -

DR. HORN: Pages 161-162, 140, 144, 145, 157. They are in
each case just short paragraphs.

THE PRESIDENT Dr. Horn, it is an appropriate time for us to
break off.

(A recess was taken.)

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor