DR. HORN: At any rate, Mr. President, Mr. Churchill was one of the
statesmen best known in Germany. This statement, which Churchill made at
that time on the occasion of his visit to the embassy, was immediately
reported to Hitler by Ribbentrop and was, in all probability, one of the
reasons for Hitler’s making the statements quoted in the so-called
Hossbach document, submitted as Document Number 386-PS, which contains
statements and declarations so surprising to the participants and in
which the Prosecution saw the first definite evidence of a conspiracy in
the sense of the Indictment.
Furthermore, I should like to say that the British Prosecutor, Jones,
mentioned that, after the seizure of Czechoslovakia by Germany, people
in England and Poland became very concerned. Therefore negotiations
between England and Poland were started, and a pact of guarantee
concluded.
On the basis of this statement of Churchill which has been mentioned,
and those of other important British statesmen, according to which
England would bring about a coalition against Germany within a few years
in order to oppose Hitler with all available means—as a result of these
statements, Hitler became henceforth more keenly anxious to increase his
own armaments and to busy himself with strategic plans.
For these reasons I consider Churchill’s statement extraordinarily
important and I ask that this witness be called.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have stated my point, My Lord; I do not think
I can add to it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to have Dr. Horn’s observations,
which they have only heard through the microphone, in writing on this
subject.
DR. HORN: As the next witnesses I name Lord Londonderry, Lord Kemsley,
Lord Beaverbrook, and Lord Vansittart. Interrogatories have already been
sent out to these witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: These witnesses are being dealt with by
interrogatories and we make no objection to the interrogatories.
DR. HORN: As the next witness I would like to call Admiral Schuster;
last address, Kiel.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We object to the calling of Admiral Schuster.
The grounds for his being asked for are that he took part in the
negotiations which led to the German-English Naval Treaty of 1935.
Apparently the point that is desired to be made is that the treaty was
concluded on this defendant’s initiative.
The Prosecution submit that that point is irrelevant; that the
negotiations before the treaty are irrelevant, and the treaty is there
for the Tribunal to take judicial notice of and from which my friend can
find any argument which he desires.
But in general, the Prosecution wish to stress that going into
negotiations anterior to old-standing treaties would be an intolerable
waste of time when there are so many vital issues before the Tribunal.
DR. HORN: In this Trial we are discussing straightforwardly the problem
of plans and preparations. In this connection it is certainly not
inappropriate to hear evidence as to what the German Government, and
especially Ribbentrop, had planned and prepared at that time. This
planning and preparations which took place within the negotiations
leading to the signing of the naval treaty was carried further than just
to the conclusion of that treaty. The treaty was considered by Von
Ribbentrop—and Admiral Schuster can bear witness to the fact—the first
cornerstone in a close treaty of alliance between England and Germany.
To make these intentions clear to the Tribunal, and thereby the policy
which the Defendant Von Ribbentrop pursued, I consider this witness
important; and I ask Sir David to modify his position.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I cannot. My colleagues and I have
considered this matter very carefully and I have put our general
position as to pre-treaty negotiations, especially as to treaties of
long standing. With the greatest desire to be reasonable, to help Dr.
Horn, I am very sorry I cannot, at this point, accede to his request.
GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to complete what my colleague, Sir David, has
stated by the following:
Dr. Horn has requested us to justify the arguments of the Prosecution. I
believe that there is one fundamental divergence in this matter between
the Prosecution and the Defense. The Defense, in calling witnesses, give
evidence and try to prove the defendants’ endeavors to conclude
peace-promoting agreements. We proceed from another fact, namely, the
treacherous violation of concluded agreements and the commission of
crimes contravening these agreements. And it seems to be quite
superfluous to call witnesses to prove that the defendants strove, in
view of these considerations, to sign peaceful agreements. The violation
and treachery in the fulfillment of these agreements are generally known
facts.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, in order to test the relevancy of this class of
evidence, I should like to ask you this question:
Assume that Ribbentrop did want to make agreements with England and did
not wish that Germany should make war on England. What relevancy would
that have to the allegation that Germany was planning to make war upon
Poland?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, to be able to answer that question decisively
as far as the conduct of the Defense is concerned, I would have to go
back to the state of all the political and diplomatic affairs of the
period previous to the second World War. To explain the reasons for
calling witnesses, I would not like to enter into arguments yet on such
matters of principle before I have thoroughly scrutinized all the
possible evidence at my disposal and formed a definite opinion—and a
basis for my conduct of the Defense. The ruling which the President gave
regarding reasons for summoning witnesses—that the Tribunal will help
us to procure the witnesses and the evidentiary material—I have
understood to mean that for the summoning of witnesses, we have only to
state reasons which in all probability would be confirmed by the
witnesses themselves after preliminary interrogation.
To make it quite clear, I do not wish to prejudice myself.
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, former
interpreter at the Foreign Office in Berlin, at this time probably at
Oberursel in the interrogation camp.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-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, then the Prosecution feel that it might
be relevant, certainly on the question of sentence; if not, then they
would reserve all rights to say whether it was a question of guilt or
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 DAVID MAXWELL-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. I
believe I can already say that Sir David will give the same reasons
against them as he did against the other witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-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.
DR. HORN: Then, I would like to forego the calling of these two
witnesses, provided the Court will grant me Admiral Schuster.
The next witness is the former Chief Recorder at the Foreign Office,
Dörnberg, at present most probably interned at Augsburg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Again, with great respect, Herr Dörnberg’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: Mr. President, with reference to this matter I can say that
Ciano, himself, in his diary which has now been made accessible to us,
presents this proof—at least as to the decisive point—which Mr.
Dörnberg is supposed to bring; and we shall submit it to the Court at
the proper time and—I believe I can say—in a conclusive form.
The second point of Dörnberg’s statement deals with the matter of
decoration. The Russian Prosecution has accused Ribbentrop of bartering
Siebenbürgen for a high Romanian order. For this reason I would like
permission to question Mr. Dörnberg about this point either here or in
the form of an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: Next I name Ambassador Schnurre, chief of the commercial
policy department of the Foreign Office, present whereabouts unknown,
presumably in custody in the British zone.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-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 a treaty which 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 this witness, because the fact
alone that the witness can testify about the sincerity or insincerity or
the intentions of his chief is not so important for me as the fact that,
on the basis of participation at the negotiations and preliminary
negotiations and his discussions with other important persons about the
background of this treaty, he can testify with regard to 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 was 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, for determining the criminal facts in this case
in order to establish guilt, it is material to know the extent to which
the Defendant Ribbentrop, as a human being, strove to keep the treaty;
and it is a different question how far he may have been compelled, by
political necessity and other forces, to witness how a treaty was not
kept in the sense in which it was originally signed.
THE PRESIDENT: You can pass on.
DR. HORN: Ambassador Ritter of the Foreign Office, eventually a liaison
man with the OKW; at this time most probably in the internment camp at
Augsburg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-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 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 document 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: Sir David has just stated the reason why I have requested the
witness. The witness is supposed to and will testify that Von Ribbentrop
was opposed to special treatment of terror fliers—at least for acts
covered by the Geneva Convention—without previous notification to the
signatory powers of that convention.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Horn says that he wants to call Ambassador
Ritter to contradict the two documents prepared by 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 to give evidence
of any sort?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-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 up to the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: The next witness is the former German Ambassador in Oslo, Von
Grundherr, at present presumably in Allied custody.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-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 sterling 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 limit my statement to the fact that I want to call them to
testify that Ribbentrop, from 1933 to 1939, also earnestly and
constantly endeavored to bring about close relations with France.
The witnesses, above all M. Daladier, former Prime Minister of France,
can give substantive, detailed evidence about these efforts. If the
Court should decide that these witnesses, or some of these witnesses,
could give their testimony in the form of affidavits, I will submit
relevant questions to the Tribunal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-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 Castellane, 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 wishes to prove exactly the
fact that the efforts of Ribbentrop with respect to France went further
than normal remarks which could not be called anything more than
_courtoisie internationale_. For this reason I ask that one or the other
of the witnesses in this group be granted me.
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 through these witnesses to produce evidence that
it was at least not the intention of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop to
plan and prepare wars but that he has tried for years to improve
relations with Germany’s neighboring states.
The Prosecution, Mr. President, accuses my client also of having planned
and carried out aggressive aims, war against England and France. If the
Prosecution will forego this point, I, of course, can also forego these
witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give this the necessary consideration.
DR. HORN: The next witness is Mr. Ernest Tennant of London.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to this witness, 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. But 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 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 and 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 gentlemen
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 fundamental question. The Prosecution always raises the
question: What can this witness tell us about the fact that Germany did
or did not march against Poland, or is to blame for the Polish-German
war, inasmuch as the witness comes from an entirely different country
and has nothing to do with Poland or Polish affairs?
The Defense is of the opinion, on the other hand, that the entire policy
of Germany toward Poland can only be understood within the framework of
the whole of European politics. Therefore, the Defense has called for
witnesses whom the Prosecution would like to exclude, because they can
offer us material for the reconstruction of the large picture. With this
in mind, I also ask for Professor Conwell-Evans of London.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal again 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 Conwell-Evans,
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 on the Tribunal as
to his intentions and as to his 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, Oberstdorf in Allgäu,
the witness under Number 38.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-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 fail 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 20 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 listed under
Number 5, Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Aren’t you going to deal with Number 38? You
didn’t deal with 37. You are passing that over, are you?
DR. HORN: I believe that the same objections would be raised against him
as were raised with reference to the other witnesses. Since I assume
that the Tribunal is going to decide in principle about the question
whether or not all the related facts should be submitted here, I have
left out the naming of this witness and ask the Tribunal for a decision.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Now you want to go back to Number 5?
DR. HORN: I would like to come back to Number 5, Legation Counsellor
Gottfriedsen. Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen conducted the entire
official and private finances of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop for many
years.
Ribbentrop has been accused by various members of the Prosecution of
enriching himself with objects of art and similar things. About this
point Legation Counsellor Gottfriedsen can give decisive evidence which
will invalidate these charges. I therefore ask for approval of this
witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have just asked Dr. Horn on this
point whether he would prefer Herr Gottfriedsen to Herr 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 seven 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, Mr. President; in this case I ask for the witness
Gottfriedsen.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HORN: My statement on the subject of summoning witnesses is thereby
concluded.
DR. STAHMER: I have not named some witnesses because other defendant’s
counsel had asked for them. Among these is also the interpreter Dr.
Schmidt. I likewise have the greatest interest in the questioning of
this witness. Schmidt was Göring’s interpreter and was present at almost
all foreign political negotiations with statesmen. Therefore I also ask
for the summoning of this witness and to that extent support the
application made by Dr. Horn.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that, Dr. Stahmer. We will adjourn now
for 10 minutes.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. HORN: Mr. President, may I please bring up one other point having to
do with the calling of witnesses?
I have also named a number of the witnesses, because I must ascertain
when the conspiracy in general begins and when my client could have
joined this conspiracy. The Prosecution made things relatively easy for
itself as regards setting the time at which the conspiracy begins, by
stating in the general Indictment “sometime before 8 May 1945.”
Now, if I can call no witnesses with regard to the years 1933 to 1938,
then I must assume that the Prosecution admits that the Defendant
Ribbentrop could not have been a party to the conspiracy at least before
1939. I should like this point of view to be taken into consideration in
the granting of witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be helpful, if I indicated quite
generally what Dr. Horn has to meet.
The Tribunal will remember that on the 8th and 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 finally,
the United States and Japan. All these matters are set out with the
supporting documents, and a reference to them will show exactly what is
alleged against the defendant on that point.
Apart from that, there are four matters under Counts Three and Four
which are specially raised.
First of all, the defendant pressed that measures contrary to
international law and the conventions should be taken against Allied
aviators. Again, the supporting documents are in evidence. Second, there
is General Lahousen’s evidence as to what the defendant said with regard
to the treatment of the population of Poland. Third, 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
long 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.
I don’t think that if Dr. Horn will consider various points, which are
practically all collected in the transcript for the 8th and 9th of
January, except the last point, 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 allege any particular date at which the conspiracy started;
and second, 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 DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 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 One 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 One 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 came into being, through 1936 when the
Rhineland was reoccupied, that 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 1938, and the Fall Grün against Czechoslovakia, which
originated in May 1938, 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 accusation of
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.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): Sir
David, I would like to ask you a few questions in connection with this.
First of all, you must know either 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 don’t know when the conspiracy began? If you do
know, would you tell us?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The conspiracy began with the formation of the
Nazi Party.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what was that date?