Chapter XI: 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, and so forth.

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—the military, naval, and air clauses. Parts VII and XIII are not included in the United States treaty.

I don’t think there is any reason to explain what the parts are, but if the Tribunal wishes to know about any specific part, I shall be very happy to explain it.

The first part that the Tribunal is concerned with is that contained in the British Document TC-5, and consists of Articles 42 to 44 dealing with the Rhineland. These are very short, and as they are repeated in the Locarno Treaty, perhaps I had better read them once, just so that the Tribunal will have them in mind.

“Article 42: Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any
fortifications either on the left bank of the Rhine or on the
right bank to the west of a line drawn 50 kilometers to the east
of the Rhine.

“Article 43: In the area defined above, the maintenance and the
assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily, and
military maneuvers of any kind, as well as the upkeep of all
permanent works for mobilization, are in the same way forbidden.

“Article 44: In case Germany violates in any manner whatever the
provisions of Articles 42 and 43, she shall be regarded as
committing a hostile act against the powers signatory of the
present treaty and as calculated to disturb the peace of the
world.”

I am not going to put in evidence, but I simply draw the Tribunal’s attention to a document of which they can take judicial notice, as it has been published by the German State, the memorandum of March 7, 1936, giving their account of the breach. The matters regarding the breach have been dealt with by my friend, Mr. Alderman, and I don’t propose to go over the ground again.

The next part of the treaty is in the British Document TC-6, dealing with Austria:

“Article 80: Germany acknowledges and will respect strictly the
independence of Austria within the frontiers which may be fixed
in a treaty between that state and the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers; she agrees that this independence shall be
inalienable, except with the consent of the Council of the
League of Nations.”

Again in the same way, the proclamation of Hitler dealing with Austria, the background of which has been dealt with by my friend, Mr. Alderman, is attached as TC-47. I do not intend to read it because the Tribunal can again take judicial notice of the public proclamation.

Next is Document TC-8, dealing with Memel:

“Germany renounces, in favor of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers, all rights and title over the territories
included between the Baltic, the northeastern frontier of East
Prussia as defined in Article 28 of Part II, (Boundaries of
Germany) of the present treaty, and the former frontier between
Germany and Russia.

“Germany undertakes to accept the settlement made by the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers in regard to these
territories, particularly insofar as concerns the nationality of
inhabitants.”

I don’t think that the Tribunal has had any reference to the formal document of incorporation of Memel, of which again the Tribunal can take judicial notice; and I put in, for convenience, a copy as GB-4. It is British Document TC-53A, and it appears in our book. It is very short, so perhaps the Tribunal will bear with me while I read it:

“The Transfer Commissioner for the Memel territory, Gauleiter
und Oberpräsident Erich Koch, effected on 3 April during a
conference at Memel, the final incorporation of the Memel
territory into the National Socialist Party Gau of East Prussia
and into the state administration of the East Prussian
Regierungsbezirk of Gumbinnen . . . .”

Then, next we come to TC-9, which is the article relating to Danzig, Article 100, and I shall read only the first sentence, because the remainder consists of geographical boundaries;

“Germany renounces, in favor of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers, all rights and title over the territory
comprised within the following limits . . . .”

—And then the limits are set out and are described in a German map attached to the treaty.

Lieutenant Colonel Griffith-Jones, who will deal with this part of the case, will formally prove the documents relating to the occupation of Danzig, and I shall not trouble the Tribunal with them now.

So if the Tribunal would go on to British Document TC-7—that is Article 81, dealing with the Czechoslovak State:

“Germany, in conformity with the action already taken by the
Allied and Associated Powers, recognizes the complete
independence of the Czechoslovak State, which will include the
autonomous territory of the Ruthenians to the south of the
Carpathians. Germany hereby recognizes the frontiers of this
state as determined by the Principal Allied and Associated
Powers and other interested states.”

Mr. Alderman has dealt with this matter only this morning, and he has already put in an exhibit giving in detail the conference between Hitler and President Hacha, and the Foreign Minister Chvalkowsky, at which the Defendants Göring and Keitel were present. Therefore, I am not going to put in to the Tribunal the British translation of the captured Foreign Office minutes, which occurs in TC-48; but I put in formally, as Mr. Alderman asked me to this morning, as GB-6, the Document TC-49, which is the agreement signed by Hitler and the Defendant Ribbentrop for Germany and Dr. Hacha and Dr. Chvalkowsky for Czechoslovakia. It is an agreement of which the Tribunal will take judicial notice. I am afraid I can’t quite remember whether Mr. Alderman read it this morning; it is Document TC-49. He certainly referred to it.

THE PRESIDENT: No, he did not read it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then perhaps I might read it. Text of the:

“Agreement between the Führer and Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler
and the President of the Czechoslovak State Dr. Hacha . . . .

“The Führer and Reich Chancellor today received in Berlin, at
their own request, the President of the Czechoslovak State, Dr.
Hacha, and the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister, Dr. Chvalkowsky,
in the presence of Herr von Ribbentrop, the Foreign Minister of
the Reich. At this meeting the serious situation which had
arisen within the previous territory of Czechoslovakia, owing to
the events of recent weeks, was subjected to a completely open
examination. The conviction was unanimously expressed on both
sides that the object of all their efforts must be to assure
quiet, order, and peace in this part of Central Europe. The
President of the Czechoslovak State declared that, in order to
serve this end and to reach a final pacification, he confidently
placed the fate of the Czech people and of their country in the
hands of the Führer of the German Reich. The Führer accepted
this declaration and expressed his decision to assure to the
Czech people, under the protection of the German Reich, the
autonomous development of their national life, in accordance
with their special characteristics. In witness whereof this
document is signed in duplicate.”

The signatures I mentioned appear.

The Tribunal will understand that it is not my province to make any comment; that has been done by Mr. Alderman. And I am not putting forward any of the documents I read as having my support; they are merely put forward factually as part of the case.

The next document, which I put in as GB-7, is the British Document TC-50. That is Hitler’s proclamation to the German people, dated the 15th of March 1939. Again, I don’t think that Mr. Alderman read that document.

THE PRESIDENT: No, he did not read it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then I shall read it:

“Proclamation of the Führer to the German people, 15 March 1939.

“To the German People:

“Only a few months ago Germany was compelled to protect her
fellow countrymen, living in well-defined settlements, against
the unbearable Czechoslovakian terror regime; and during the
last weeks the same thing has happened on an ever-increasing
scale. This is bound to create an intolerable state of affairs
within an area inhabited by citizens of so many nationalities.

“These national groups, to counteract the renewed attacks
against their freedom and life, have now broken away from the
Prague Government. Czechoslovakia has ceased to exist.

“Since Sunday at many places wild excesses have broken out,
amongst the victims of which are again many Germans. Hourly the
number of oppressed and persecuted people crying for help is
increasing. From areas thickly populated by German-speaking
inhabitants, which last autumn Czechoslovakia was allowed by
German generosity to retain, refugees robbed of their personal
belongings are streaming into the Reich.

“Continuation of such a state of affairs would lead to the
destruction of every vestige of order in an area in which
Germany is vitally interested particularly as for over 1,000
years it formed a part of the German Reich.

“In order definitely to remove this menace to peace and to
create the conditions for a necessary new order in this living
space, I have today resolved to allow German troops to march
into Bohemia and Moravia. They will disarm the terror gangs and
the Czechoslovakian forces supporting them, and protect the
lives of all who are menaced. Thus they will lay the foundations
for introducing a fundamental re-ordering of affairs which will
be in accordance with the 1,000-year-old history and will
satisfy the practical needs of the German and Czech
peoples.”—Signed—“Adolf Hitler, Berlin, 15 March 1939.”

Then there is a footnote, an order of the Führer to the German Armed Forces of the same date, in which the substance is that they are told to march in, to safeguard lives and property of all inhabitants, and not to conduct themselves as enemies, but as an instrument for carrying out the German Reich Government’s decision.

I put in, as GB-8, the decrees establishing the Protectorate, which is TC-51.

I think again, as these are public decrees, the Tribunal can take judicial knowledge of them. Their substance has been fully explained by Mr. Alderman. With the permission of the Tribunal, I won’t read them in full now.

Then again, as Mr. Alderman requested, I put in, as GB-9, British Document TC-52, the British protest. If I might just read that to the Tribunal—it is from Lord Halifax to Sir Neville Henderson, our Ambassador in Berlin:

“Foreign Office, March 17, 1939.

“Please inform the German Government that His Majesty’s
Government desire to make it plain to them that they cannot but
regard the events of the past few days as a complete repudiation
of the Munich Agreement and a denial of the spirit in which the
negotiators of that Agreement bound themselves to co-operate for
a peaceful settlement.

“His Majesty’s Government must also take this occasion to
protest against the changes effected in Czechoslovakia by German
military action, which are in their view, devoid of any basis of
legality.”

And again at Mr. Alderman’s request, I put in as GB-10 the Document TC-53, which is the French protest of the same date, and if I might read the third paragraph:

“The French Ambassador has the honor to inform the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of the Reich, of the formal protest made by the
Government of the French Republic against the measures which the
communication of Count de Welczeck records.

“The Government of the Republic consider, in fact, that in face
of the action directed by the German Government against
Czechoslovakia, they are confronted with a flagrant violation of
the letter and the spirit of the agreement signed at Munich on
September 29, 1938.

“The circumstances in which the agreement of March 15 has been
imposed on the leaders of the Czechoslovak Republic do not, in
the eyes of the Government of the Republic, legalize the
situation registered in that agreement.

“The French Ambassador has the honor to inform His Excellency,
the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Reich, that the
Government of the Republic cannot recognize under these
conditions the legality of the new situation created in
Czechoslovakia by the action of the German Reich.”

I now come to Part 5 of the Versailles Treaty, and the relevant matters are contained in the British Document TC-10. As considerable discussion is centered around them, I read the introductory words:

“Part V, Military, Naval, and Air Clauses: In order to render
possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments
of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the
military, naval, and air clauses which follow.

“Section 1. Military Clauses. Chapter I. Effectives and Cadres
of the German Army.

“Article 159. The German military forces shall be demobilized
and reduced as prescribed hereinafter.

“Article 160. (1) By a date which must not be later than March
31, 1920, the German Army must not comprise more than seven
divisions of infantry and three divisions of cavalry.

“After that date, the total number of effectives in the Army of
the states constituting Germany must not exceed 100,000 men,
including officers and establishments of depots. The Army shall
be devoted exclusively to the maintenance of order within the
territory and to the control of the frontiers.

“The total effective strength of officers, including the
personnel of staffs, whatever their composition, must not exceed
4,000.

“(2) Divisions and Army Corps headquarters staffs, shall be
organized in accordance with Table Number 1 annexed to this
Section. The number and strength of the units of infantry,
artillery, engineers, technical services and troops laid down in
the aforesaid table constitute maxima which must not be
exceeded.”

Then there is a description of units that can have their own depots and the grouping of divisions under corps headquarters, and then the next two provisions are of some importance:

“The maintenance or formation of forces differently grouped or
of other organizations for the command of troops or for
preparation for war is forbidden.

“The great German General Staff and all similar organizations
shall be dissolved and may not be reconstituted in any form.”

I don’t think I need trouble the Tribunal with Article 161, which deals with administrative services.

Article 163 provides the steps by which the reduction will take place, and then we come to Chapter 2, dealing with armament, and that provides that up till the time at which Germany is admitted as a member of the League of Nations, armaments shall not be greater than the amounts fixed in Table Number 11.

If the Tribunal will note the second part, Germany agrees that after she has become a member of the League of Nations, the armaments fixed in the said table shall remain in force until they are modified by the Council of the League. Furthermore, she hereby agrees strictly to observe the decisions of the Council of the League on this subject.

Then, 165 deals with guns and machine guns, and so forth, and 167 deals with notification of guns, and 168, the first part, says:

“The manufacture of arms, munitions, or any war material shall
only be carried out in factories or works, the location of which
shall be communicated to and approved by the governments of the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers, and the number of which
they retain the right to restrict.”

Article 169 deals with the surrender of material. Number 170 prohibits importation; 171 prohibits gas, and 172 provides for disclosure. Then 173, under the heading, “Recruiting and Military Training” deals with one matter, the breach of which is of great importance:

“Universal compulsory military service shall be abolished in
Germany. The German Army may only be constituted and recruited
by means of voluntary enlistment.”

Then the succeeding articles deal with the method of enlistment in order to prevent a quick rush through the army of men enlisted for a short time.

I think that all I need do is to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the completeness and detail with which all these points are covered in Articles 174 to 179.

Then, passing to TC-10, Article 180. That contains the prohibition of fortress works beyond a certain limit and in the Rhineland. The first sentence is:

“All fortified works, fortresses, and field works situated in
German territory to the west of a line drawn 50 kilometers to
the east of the Rhine shall be disarmed and dismantled.”

I shall not trouble the Tribunal with the tables which show the amounts.

Then we come to the naval clauses. If the Tribunal will be good enough to go on four pages, they will come to Article 181, and I will just read that to show the way in which the naval limitations are imposed and refer briefly to the others.

Article 181 says:

“After the expiration of a period of 2 months from the coming
into force of the present treaty the German naval forces in
commission must not exceed:

“Six battleships of the Deutschland or Lothringen type, six
light cruisers, 12 destroyers, 12 torpedo boats, or an equal
number of ships constructed to replace them as provided in
Article 190.

“No submarines are to be included.

“All other warships, except where there is provision to the
contrary in the present treaty, must be placed in reserve or
devoted to commercial purposes.”

Then 182 simply deals with the mine sweeping necessary to clear up the mines, and 183 limits the personnel to 15,000, including officers and men of all grades and corps, and 184 deals with surface ships not in German ports, and the succeeding clauses deal with various details, and I pass at once to Article 191, which says:

“The construction or acquisition of any submarines, even for
commercial purposes, shall be forbidden in Germany.”

Article 194 makes corresponding obligations of voluntary engagements for longer service, and 196 and 197 deal with naval fortifications and wireless stations.

Then, if the Tribunal please, would they pass to Article 198, the first of the air clauses. The essential and important sentence is the first:

“The Armed Forces of Germany must not include any military or
naval air forces.”

I don’t think that I need trouble the Tribunal with the detailed provisions which occur in the next four clauses, which are all consequential.

Then, the next document, which for convenience is put next to that, is the British Document TC-44. For convenience I put in a copy as GB-11, but this again is merely ancillary to Mr. Alderman’s argument. It is the report of the formal statement made at the German Air Ministry about the restarting of the Air Corps, and I respectfully submit that the Tribunal can take judicial notice of that.

Similarly, without proving formally the long Document, TC-45, the Tribunal can again take judicial notice of the public proclamation, which is a well-known public document in Germany, the proclamation of compulsory military service. Mr. Alderman has again dealt with this fully in his address.

I now come to the sixth treaty, which is the treaty between the United States and Germany restoring friendly relations, and I put in a copy as Exhibit GB-12. It is Document TC-11, and the Tribunal will find it as the second last document in the document book. The purpose of this treaty was to complete official cessation of hostilities between the United States of America and Germany, and I have already explained to the Tribunal that it incorporated certain parts of the Treaty of Versailles. The relevant portion for the consideration of the Tribunal is Part V, and I have just concluded going through the clauses of the Treaty of Versailles which are repeated verbatim in this treaty. I therefore, with the approval of the Tribunal, will not read them again, but at Page 11 of my copy, they will see the clauses are repeated in exactly the same way.

Then I pass to the seventh treaty, which is the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee between Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain, and Italy, negotiated at Locarno, October 16, 1925. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of that, and I put in as Exhibit GB-13, the British Document TC-12.

I was dealing with the Treaty of Locarno, and it might be convenient if I just reminded the Tribunal of the treaties that were negotiated at Locarno, because they do all go together and are to a certain extent mutually dependent.

At Locarno, Germany negotiated five treaties:

(A) The Treaty of Mutual Guarantee between Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain, and Italy; (B) the Arbitration Convention between Germany and France; (C) the Arbitration Convention between Germany and Belgium; (D) the Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Poland; and (E) an Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Czechoslovakia.

Article 10 of the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee provided that it should come into force as soon as ratifications were deposited at Geneva, in the archives of the League of Nations, and as soon as Germany became a member of the League of Nations. The ratifications were deposited on the 14th September 1926 and Germany became a member of the League of Nations on the 10th of September 1926.

The two arbitration conventions and the two arbitration treaties which I mentioned provide that they shall enter into force under the same conditions as the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee. That is Article 21 of the Arbitration Conventions and Article 22 of the Arbitration Treaties.

The most important of the five agreements is the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee. One of its purposes was to establish in perpetuity the borders between Germany and Belgium, and Germany and France. It contains no provision for denunciation or withdrawal therefrom and provides that it shall remain in force until the Council of the League of Nations decides that the League of Nations ensures sufficient protection to the parties to the treaty—an event which never happened—in which case the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee shall expire 1 year later.

The general scheme of the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee is that Article 1 provides that the parties guarantee three things:

The border between Germany and France, the border between Germany and Belgium, and the demilitarization of the Rhineland.

Article 2 provides that Germany and France, and Germany and Belgium, agree that they will not attack or invade each other with certain inapplicable exceptions, and Article 3 provides that Germany and France, and Germany and Belgium, agree to settle all disputes between them by peaceful means.

The Tribunal will remember, because this point was made by my friend, Mr. Alderman, that the first important violation of the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee appears to have been the entry of German troops into the Rhineland on 7 March 1936. The day after, France and Belgium asked the League of Nations Council to consider the question of the German re-occupation of the Rhineland and the purported repudiation of the treaty, and on the 12th of March, after a protest from the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Belgium, France, Great Britain, and Italy recognized unanimously that the re-occupation was a violation of this treaty, and on the 14th of March, the League Council duly and properly decided that it was not permissible and that the Rhineland clauses of the pact were not voidable by Germany because of the alleged violation by France in the Franco-Soviet Mutual Assistance Pact.

That is the background to the treaty with the international organizations that were then in force, and if I might suggest them to the Tribunal without adding to the summary which I have given, the relevant articles are 1, 2, and 3, which I have mentioned, and 4, which provides for the bringing of violations before the Council of the League, as was done, and 5 I ask the Tribunal to note, because it deals with the clauses of the Versailles Treaty which I have already mentioned. It says:

“The provisions of Article 3 of the present treaty are placed
under the guarantee of the High Contracting Parties as provided
by the following stipulations:

“If one of the powers referred to in Article 3 refuses to submit
a dispute to peaceful settlement or to comply with an arbitral
or judicial decision and commits a violation of Article 2 of the
present treaty or a breach of Articles 42 or 43 of the Treaty of
Versailles, the provisions of Article 4 of the present treaty
shall apply.”

That is the procedure of going to the League or in the case of a flagrant breach, of taking more stringent action.

I remind the Tribunal of this provision because of the quotations from Hitler which I mentioned earlier, when he said that the German Government will scrupulously maintain every treaty voluntarily signed, even though they were concluded before their accession to power and office. Whatever may be said of the Treaty of Versailles, whatever may be argued and has been argued, no one has ever argued for a moment, to the best of my knowledge, that Herr Stresemann was in any way acting involuntarily when he signed, along with the other representatives, the Locarno pact on behalf of Germany. It was signed not only by Herr Stresemann, but by Herr Hans Luther, so that there you have a treaty freely entered into, which repeats the Rhineland provisions of Versailles and binds Germany in that regard. I simply call the attention of the Tribunal to Article 8, which deals with the remaining in force of the treaty. I might perhaps read it because as I told the Tribunal all the other treaties have the same lasting qualities, the same provisions as to the time they will last, as the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee. It says:

“Article 8. The present treaty shall be registered at the League
of Nations in accordance with the Covenant of the League. It
shall remain in force until the Council, acting on a request by
one or other of the High Contracting Parties notified to the
other signatory powers 3 months in advance, and voting at least
by a two-thirds majority, decides that the League of Nations
ensures sufficient protection to the High Contracting Parties;
the treaty shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a
period of 1 year from such decision.”

That is, that in signing this treaty, the German representatives clearly placed the question of repudiation or avoidance of the treaty in hands other than their own. They were at the time, of course, a member of the League, and a member of the Council of the League, but they left the repudiation and avoidance to the decision of the League.

Then the next treaty on my list is the Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Czechoslovakia, which was one of the Locarno group and to which I have already referred, but for convenience I have put in Exhibit GB-14, which is British Document TC-14. As a breach of this treaty, as charged in Charge 8, of Appendix C, I mentioned the background of the treaty, and I shall not go into it again but I think the only clauses that the Tribunal need look at, are Article 1, which is the governing clause, and says as follows (Document TC-14):

“All disputes of every kind between Germany and Czechoslovakia
with regard to which the parties are in conflict as to their
respective rights, and which it may not be possible to settle
amicably by the normal methods of diplomacy, shall be submitted
for decision either to an arbitral tribunal, or to the Permanent
Court of International Justice as laid down hereafter. It is
agreed that the disputes referred to above include, in
particular, those mentioned in Article 13 of the Covenant of the
League of Nations.

“This provision does not apply to disputes arising out of events
prior to the present treaty and belonging to the past.

“Disputes for the settlement of which a special procedure is
laid down in other conventions in force between the High
Contracting Parties, shall be settled in conformity with the
provisions of these conventions.”

Articles 2 to 21 of the machinery. In Article 22 the second sentence says it—that’s the present treaty—shall enter into and remain in force under the same conditions as the said treaty, which is the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee.

Now that, I think, is all I need mention about that treaty. I think I am right that my friend, Mr. Alderman, referred to it. It is certainly the treaty to which President Beneš unsuccessfully appealed during the crisis in the autumn of 1938. Now the ninth treaty which I should deal with is not in this document book, and I merely am putting it in formally, because my friend, Mr. Roberts, will deal with it and read the appropriate parts—if the Tribunal will be good enough to note it because it is mentioned in Charge 9 of Appendix C. It is the Arbitration Convention between Germany and Belgium also done at Locarno, of which I hand in a copy for convenience as GB-15. In fact, I can tell the Tribunal all these arbitration conventions are in the same form, and I am not going to deal with it because it is essentially part of the case concerned with Belgium, the Low Countries, and Luxembourg, which my friend, Mr. Roberts, will present. Therefore, I only ask the Tribunal to accept the formal document for the moment. And the same applies to the tenth treaty, which is mentioned in Charge 10 of Appendix C. That is the Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Poland, of which I ask the Tribunal to take notice, and I hand in as GB-16. That again will be dealt with by my friend, Colonel Griffith-Jones, when he is dealing with the Polish case.

I therefore can take the Tribunal straight to a matter which is not a treaty, but is a solemn declaration, and that is TC-18, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-17, and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of, as a Declaration of the Assembly of the League of Nations. The importance is the date which was the 24th of September 1927. The Tribunal may remember that I asked them to take judicial notice of the fact that Germany had become a member of the League of Nations on 10 September 1926, a year before.

The importance of this Declaration is not only its effect in international law, to which my learned friend, the Attorney General, referred, but the fact that it was unanimously adopted by the Assembly of the League, of which Germany was a free, and let me say at once, an active member at the time. I think that all I need read of TC-18 is, if the Tribunal would be good enough to look at it, the speech which begins “M. Sokal of Poland (Rapporteur),” and then the translation after the Rapporteur had dealt with the formalities, that this had gone to the third committee and been unanimously adopted, and he had been asked to act as Rapporteur, he says—the second paragraph:

“The committee was of opinion that, at the present juncture, a
solemn resolution passed by the Assembly, declaring that wars of
aggression must never be employed as a means of settling
disputes between states, and that such wars constitute an
international crime, would have a salutary effect on public
opinion, and would help to create an atmosphere favorable to the
League’s future work in the matter of security and disarmament.

“While recognizing that the draft resolution does not constitute
a regular legal instrument, which would be adequate in itself
and represent a concrete contribution towards security, the
Third Committee unanimously agreed as to its great moral and
educative value.”

Then he asked the Assembly to adopt the draft resolution, and I will read simply the terms of the resolution, which shows what so many nations, including Germany, put forward at that time:

“The Assembly, recognizing the solidarity which unites the
community of nations, being inspired by a firm desire for the
maintenance of general peace, being convinced that a war of
aggression can never serve as a means of settling international
disputes, and is in consequence an international crime;
considering that a solemn renunciation of all wars of aggression
would tend to create an atmosphere of general confidence
calculated to facilitate the progress of the work undertaken
. . . with a view to disarmament:

“Declares: 1. That all wars of aggression are and shall always
be prohibited: 2. That every pacific means must be employed to
settle disputes of every description, which may arise between
states.

“The Assembly declares that the states, members of the League,
are under an obligation to conform to these principles.”

After a solemn vote taken in the form of roll call the President announced—which you will see at the end of the extract:

“All the delegations having pronounced in favor of the
declaration submitted by the Third Committee, I declare it
unanimously adopted.”

The last general treaty which I have to place before the Tribunal is the Kellogg-Briand Pact. The Pact of Paris of 1928, which my learned friend, the Attorney General, in opening this part of the case read _in extenso_ and commented on fully, I hand in as Exhibit GB-18—the British Document TC-19, which is a copy of that pact. I did not intend, unless the Tribunal desired otherwise, that I should read it again, as the Attorney General yesterday read it in full, but of course I am at the service of the Tribunal and therefore I leave that document before the Tribunal in that way.

Now all that remains for me to do is to place before the Tribunal certain documents which Mr. Alderman mentioned in the course of his address, and left to me. I am afraid that I haven’t placed them in a special order, because they don’t really relate to the treaties I have dealt with, but to Mr. Alderman’s argument. The first of these I hand in as Exhibit GB-19. It is British Document TC-26, and comes just after that resolution of the League of Nations to which the Tribunal had just been giving attention—TC-26. It is the assurance contained in Hitler’s speech on 21 May 1935, and it is very short, and unless the Tribunal has it in mind from Mr. Alderman’s speech, I will read it again; I am not sure of his reading it:

“Germany neither intends nor wishes to interfere in the domestic
affairs of Austria, to annex Austria, or to attach that country
to her. The German people and the German Government have,
however, the very comprehensible desire, arising out of the
simple feeling of solidarity due to a common national descent,
that the right to self-determination should be guaranteed not
only to foreign nations, but to the German people everywhere. I
myself believe that no regime which is not anchored in the
people, supported by the people, and desired by the people, can
exist permanently.”

The next document which is TC-22, and which is on the next page, I now hand in as Exhibit GB-20. It is the copy of the official proclamation of the agreement between the German Government and the Government of the Federal State of Austria on 11 July 1936, and I am almost certain that Mr. Alderman did read this document, but I refer the Tribunal to Paragraph 1 of the agreement to remind them of the essential content:

“The German Government recognizes the full sovereignty of the
Federal State of Austria in the sense of the pronouncements of
the German Leader and Chancellor of the 21st of May 1935.”

I now have three documents which Mr. Alderman asked me to hand in with regard to Czechoslovakia. The first is TC-27, which the Tribunal will find two documents further on from the one of Austria, to which I have just been referring. That is the German assurance to Czechoslovakia, and what I am handing in as GB-21 is the letter from M. Masaryk, Jan Masaryk’s son, to Lord Halifax, dated the 12th of March 1938. Again I think that if Mr. Alderman did not read this, he certainly quoted the statement made by the Defendant Göring, which appears in the third paragraph. In the first statement the Field Marshal used the expression, “ich gebe Ihnen mein Ehrenwort,” which I understand means, “I give you my word of honor,” and if you will look down three paragraphs, after the Defendant Göring had asked that there would not be a mobilization of the Czechoslovak Army, the communication continues:

“M. Mastny was in a position to give him definite and binding
assurances on this subject, and today spoke with Baron Von
Neurath—that is the Defendant Von Neurath—who, among other
things assured him on behalf of Herr Hitler that Germany still
considers herself bound by the German-Czechoslovak Arbitration
Convention concluded at Locarno in October 1925.”

So there I remind the Tribunal that in 1925 Herr Stresemann was speaking on behalf of Germany in an agreement voluntarily concluded. Had there been the slightest doubt of that, here is the Defendant Von Neurath giving the assurance on behalf of Hitler that Germany still considers herself bound by the German-Czechoslovak Arbitration Convention on 12 March 1938, 6 months before Dr. Beneš made a hopeless appeal to it, before the crisis in the autumn of 1938. Of course the difficult position of the Czechoslovak Government is set out in the last paragraph, but M. Masaryk says—and the Tribunal may think with great force—in his last sentence:

“They cannot however fail to view with great apprehension the
sequel of events in Austria between the date of the bilateral
agreement between Germany and Austria, 11 July 1936, and
yesterday, 11 March 1938.”

I refrain from comment, but I venture to say that is one of the most pregnant sentences relating to this period.

Now the next document which is on the next page is the British Document TC-28, which I hand in as Exhibit GB-22. And that is an assurance of the 26th of September 1938, which Hitler gave to Czechoslovakia, and again—the Tribunal will check my memory—I don’t think that Mr. Alderman read this but . . .

THE PRESIDENT: No, I don’t think so.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then I think if he did not, the Tribunal ought to have it before them, because it gives very important point as to the alleged governing principle of getting Germans back to the Reich, which the Nazi conspirators purported to ask for a considerable time, while it suited them. It says:

“I have little to explain. I am grateful to Mr. Chamberlain for
all his efforts, and I have assured him that the German people
want nothing but peace; but I have also told him that I cannot
go back beyond the limits of our patience.”

The Tribunal will remember this is between the Godesberg visit and the Munich Pact:

“I assured him, moreover, and I repeat it here, that when this
problem is solved there will be no more territorial problems for
Germany in Europe. And I further assured him that from the
moment when Czechoslovakia solves its other problems, that is to
say, when the Czechs have come to an agreement with their other
minorities peacefully, and without oppression, I will no longer
be interested in the Czech State, and that, as far as I am
concerned, I will guarantee it. We don’t want any Czechs. But I
must also declare before the German people that in the
Sudeten-German problem my patience is now at an end. I made an
offer to Herr Beneš which was no more than the realization of
what he had already promised. He has now peace or war in his
hands. Either he will accept this offer and at length give the
Germans their freedom, or we shall get this freedom for
ourselves.”

Less than 6 months before the 15th of March Hitler was saying in the most violent terms that “he didn’t want any Czechs.” The Tribunal has heard the sequel from my friend, Mr. Alderman, this morning. The last document which I have been asked to put in, and which I now ask the Tribunal to take notice of, and hand in, is Exhibit GB-23, which is the British Document TC-23 and a copy of the Munich Agreement of September 29, 1938. That was signed by Hitler, the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, M. Daladier, and Mussolini, and it is largely a procedural agreement by which the entry of German troops into the Sudeten-Deutsche territory is regulated. That is shown by the preliminary clause:

“Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, taking into
consideration the agreement which has been already reached in
principle, for the cession to Germany of the Sudeten-German
territory, have agreed on the following terms and conditions
governing the said cession and the measures consequent thereon,
and by this agreement they each hold themselves responsible for
the steps necessary to secure fulfillment.”

Then I don’t think, unless the Tribunal want me, I need go through the steps. In Article 4, it said that “The occupation by stages of the predominantly German territory by German troops will begin on 1 October.” The four territories are marked on a map. And by Article 6, “The final determination of the frontiers will be carried out by the international commission.” And it provides also for rights of option and release from the forces—the Czech forces of Sudeten Germans.

That is what Hitler was asking for in the somewhat rhetorical passage which I have just read out, and it will be observed that there is an annex to the agreement which is most significant.

“Annex to the Agreement:

“His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the French
Government have entered into the above agreement on the basis
that they stand by the offer contained in Paragraph 6 of the
Anglo-French Proposals of the 19th September, relating to an
international guarantee of the new boundaries of the
Czechoslovak State against unprovoked aggression.

“When the question of the Polish and Hungarian minorities in
Czechoslovakia has been settled, Germany and Italy, for their
part, will give a guarantee to Czechoslovakia.”

The Polish and Hungarian minorities, not the question of Slovakia which the Tribunal heard this morning. That is why Mr. Alderman submitted—and I respectfully joined him in his submission—that the action of the 15th of March was a flagrant violation of the letter and spirit of that agreement.

That, My Lord, is the part of the case which I desired to present.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship pleases. Thank you.

[_A recess was taken._]

LIEUTENANT COLONEL J. M. G. GRIFFITH-JONES (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, Count Two of the Indictment charges these defendants with participating in the planning, the preparation, the initiation, and waging of various wars of aggression, and it charges that those wars are also in breach of international treaty. It is our purpose now to present to the Tribunal the evidence in respect of those aggressive wars against Poland and against the United Kingdom and France.

Under Paragraph (B) of the particulars to Count Two, reference is made to Count One in the Indictment for the allegations charging that those wars were wars of aggression, and Count One also sets out the particulars of the preparations and planning for those wars, and in particular those allegations will be found in Paragraph (F) 4. But, My Lord, with the Tribunal’s approval I would propose first to deal with the allegations of breach of treaties which are mentioned in Paragraph (C) of the particulars, and of which the details are set out in Appendix C. My Lord, those sections of Appendix C which relate to the war against Poland are Section 2, which charges a violation of the Hague Convention in respect of the pacific settlement of international disputes, on which Sir David has already addressed the Court, and I do not propose, with the Court’s approval, to say more than that.