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 which consists of Articles 42 to 44 dealing with the Rhineland. These are very short, and repeated in the Locarno Treaty. Perhaps I had better read them once, 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 back to the west of a lire 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 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, which again the Tribunal can take judicial notice of; 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 Oberpresident Erich Koch, effected on 3 April, 1939, during a conference at Memel, the final incorporation of the late Memel territory into the National Socialist Party Gau of East Prussia and into the state administration of the East Prussian Regierungsbezirk of Grunbinnen.
Then, we next come to TC-9, which is the article relating to Danzig, Article 100, and I shall only read the first sentence, because the remainder consists of georgraphical 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.
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 shan't trouble the Tribunal with them now.
If the Tribunal would go on to British document TC-7--that is Article 81, dealing with the Czechoslovak pledge." "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 Goering 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 it formally, as Mr. Alderman asked me to this morning, as GE-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 that this morning; it is document TC-49.
He certainly referred to it.
THE PRESIDENT:No, he didn't read it.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: Then perhaps I might read it:
"Text of the Agreement between the Fuehrer and Reichs Cancellor Adolf Hitler and the President of the Czechoslovak State, Dr. Hacha.
"The Fuehrer and Reichs Chancellor today received in Berlin, at their own request, the President of the Czechoslovak State, Dr. Hacha, and the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister, Dr. Chwalkowsky, 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 Ptesident 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 Fuehrer of the German Reich. The Fuehrer 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 have mentioned appear.
The Tribunal will understand that it is not my province to make any comments that has been done by Mr. Alderman. And I am not putting forward any of the documents I have 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 March 1939. Again, I don't think that Mr. Alderman read that document.
THE PRESIDENT:No, he didn't read it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then I shall read it.
"Proclamation of the Fuehrer to the German people, 15 March 1939.
"To the German People:
"Only a fewmonths ago Germany was compelled to protect her fellowcountrymen, 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 one thousand 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 to-day 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 reordering 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, which is an order of the Fuehrer 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 carry ing out the German Reich Government's decision.
I put in, as BG-8, the decree establishing the Protectorate, which is TC-51.
I think again, as these are public decrees, the Tribunal can take judicial notice of them.
Their substance has been fully explained by Mr. Alderman.
With the permission of the Tribunal, I will not 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 Berlib:
"Foreign Office, March 17, 1939:
"Please inform 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 them selves to cooperate 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 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 Welzeck 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 9, 1938.
The circumstances in which the agreements of March 15 have 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 agree ment.
"The French Ambassador has the honor to inform His Excellency, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Reich, that the Government of the Republic can not 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 Versaille 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 5, 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. Effectives and Cadres of the German Army.
"Article 159. The German military forces shall be demobilized and reduced as prescribed hereinafter.
"Article 160. 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 frontier "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 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 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 heed 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, the armaments shall not be greater than the amount fixed in Table Number 11.
If the Tribunal will notice 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 of Nations. Furthermore, she hereby agrees strictly to observe the decisions of the Council of the League on this subject.
Then, 165 deals with guns, machine guns etc. 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 reconstituted 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 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 on to TC-10, Article 180. That unites the prohibition of fortress works beyond a certain line and 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, and I am sorry to say that the pages are out of order. If the Tribunal will go on four pages, they will come to Article 181, and I'll just read that to show the way in which the naval limitations are imposed and refer briefly to the others.
Article 181 says:
"After a period of two 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 Twelve destroyers Twelve 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 clean up the mines and 183 limits the personnel to fifteen thousand, 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."
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 on to Article 198, the first of the Air Clauses. The essential, important sentence is the first:
"The armed forces of Germany must not include any military or naval air forces.
I don't think 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 British document TC 44, which for convenience I put in 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 suggest 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 the 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 5, 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.
JUDGE BIDDLE:We don't have a copy in our book. We have (one with Austria.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: It ought to be the second last document in the book. May I pass mine up. Does that apply to other than the American Associate Judges? I'm so sorry.
Then I pass to the seventh treaty, which is the treaty of mutual guarantee between Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Italy, done 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.
THE PRESIDENT:At some later stage, you will have all the members furnished with a copy of this treat between the United States and Germany?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, I thought it was only two that were deficient.
THE PRESIDENT:No, I think the Soviet member and my alternate, Mr. Justice Birkett, have the Austrian one. I think I am the only one that has the German one. I am not quite sure about the French member.
SIR DAVIDMAZWELL-FYFE: I'm so sorry, Milord. I'll see that the American treaty is sent in.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: It will be done at once, but so far as reference is concerned, the Tribunal will appreciate that the clauses are word for word the same as the Versaille clauses. If they wish to refer to it in the meantime, it is the same as the clauses in the Versaille. That won't make any difference, Milord, in procuring a copy of the treaty.
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 German 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 of September, 1926, and Germany became a member of the League of Nations.
The two arbitration conventions and the two arbitration treaties which I mentioned provided 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 the 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 one 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, 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 Article 42 or 43 of the Treaty at Versailles, the provisions of Article 4 of the present Treaty shall apply."
That is the procedure of going to the League in the case of a flagrant breach or 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 their treaties voluntarily signed, even though they conclude before their intercession of power.
Then is stated the Treaty of Versailles. Whatever you argue, if it has been argued, no one has ever argued for a moment to the best of my knowledge that stresemann was in any way acting involuntarily when he signed the pact on behalf of Germany, along with the other representatives. He signed not there in Stresemann's name, but by Herr Hans Luther, so that there you have a treaty freely entered into, which repeats the violation provisions of the Versailles, and binds Germany in that regard. I simply call the attention of the Tribunal to Article 8, which deals with the preliminary enforcement of the Treaty by the League, which perhaps I should read because of the fact I told the Tribunal that all the other treaties had the same lasting qualities, the same provision contained therein as the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee:
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 of one or other of the High Contracting Parties notified to the other signatory Powers three 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 one year from such decision."
Thus in signing this Treaty, the German representative clearly placed the question of repudiation or violation of the Treaty in the hands of others, as they were at the time, of course, members of the League, and members in the Council of the League; that they then left the repudiation or violations to the decision of the League.
Then the next Treaty I mention is the Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Czechoslovakia, which was one of the Locarno groups to which I already referred my remarks, but that for convenience I am quoting GB 14, which is British document TC 14.
As a breach to this Treaty, as charged in Charge 8, Appendix C, I mentioned the background of the Treaty, and I shall not go into it again. I think a good part that the Tribunal should look at is Article I, which is the governing clause, and sets out the dispute in document TC 14: "All disputes of every kind between Germany and Czechoslovakia with regard to which the Parties are in conflict ---"
THE PRESIDENT:Fourteen, you say, or TC 12 in the book?
SIRMAXWELL-FYFE: No, I am sorry, it is much nearer the end of the book.
THE PRESIDENT:After the Kellogg-Briand Pact?
SIRMAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, it is, I think, after that.
THE PRESIDENT:After TC 18?
SIRMAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, it is after TC 18, and there will be TC 22 and 26, which is short.
THE PRESIDENT:I am very sorry.
SIRMAXWELL-FYFE: And the next one, it comes after that, two after that.
THE PRESIDENT:Thank you.
SIRMAXWELL-FYFE: And I was reading at the foot of the page, Article One.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
SIRMAXWELL-FYFE: "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 or prior to the present Treaty and belonging to the past.
Disputes for the settlement of which a special procedure is laid down on other conventions in force between the High Contracting Parties, shall be settled in conformity with the provisions of those Conventions."
Articles Two to Twenty-one. This treaty was registered with the Secretariat in accordance with its Article 22. The second sentence shows the present Treaty was entered into and the terms in force under the same conditions as the said Treaty, which is the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee.
Now I think that is all I'll mention about those Treaties. 1 think I am right in saying my friend, Mr. Alderman, referred to it. It is certainly the Treaty to which President Benes unsuccessfully appealed during the crisis in the Autumn of 1938. Now the 9th Treaty, with which I should deal, is not in this document book, and I merely put it in formally, because my friend, Mr. Roberts, in dealing with it, read the appropriate parts of it verbatim, and that will be good enough to put into it what I first mentioned, particularly Article C, which is the Arbitration Convention between Germany and Belgium, over at Locarno, which I hand a copy for the convenience of the Tribunal, GB 15. It is a copy, I'll tell the Tribunal. This includes the order on this Arbitration Convention made in the same form, but I thought I would review the essential parts concerned with Belgium, the Low Countries and Luxembourg, which my friend, Mr. Roberts, will present. I only ask the Tribunal to accept the foremost document for the moment. And the same applies to the 10th Treaty, which is mentioned in Charge Ten of Appen dix C. That is the Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Poland, of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice, and which 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.
Now I can take the Tribunal straight to the 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 that the Tribunal, take judicial notice of, as the Declaration of the Assembly of the League of Nations. The importance is the date which was 24 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 on International Law, to which I will say my learned friend referred, but to the fact that it was unanimously adopted by the Assembly of the League of Nations, to which Germany was a free, and I might say, at once an active member at the time. I think that I need read TC 18, that is, if the Tribunal will be good enough to look at the speech made by M. Sokal, the Polish Rapporteur and this is the translation after the Rapporteur had dealt with the formalities. Referring to the committee's being unanimously adopted, M. Sokal, the Rapporteur, said in 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 read simply the terms of the resolution, which shows what so many nations, including Germany, had in mind 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 the 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.
That the Assembly declares that the States Members of the League are under an obligation to conform to these principles." and the fact of the solemn renunciation of war was taken in the form of a rollcall, and the President announced, you will see, at the end of the extract.
"All the delegations having pronounced in favour of the declaration submitted by the Third Committee, I declare it unanimously adopted."
THETRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What is the date of that?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FIFE: 24 September, 1937.
THEPRESIDENT: 24 September 1927.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, and Germany joined later, on 10 September 1926.
The last general Treaty which I have to place before the Tribunal is the Kellogg-Briand Pact. The Pact took effect in 1928, which my learned friend Attorney General in opening this part of the case read, and on coming to it fully I hand in as Exhibit GB 18 the British document TC 19, which is a copy of that Fact. I didn't intend unless the Tribunal desires otherwise that I should read it again, as Attorney General yesterday read it in full, because I looked at the same, and rather I leave the document before the Tribunal in that form.
Now what remains for me to do is to place before the Tribunal certain documents which Mr. Alderman mentioned in the course of his address, and alas to me, I am afraid I have not kept them -- placed them in special order, because they don't relate to the Treaties, but to Mr. Alderman's article.
The first of these as I hand in is Exhibit GB 19, this is British Document TC 26, and comes just after that resolution of the League of Nations, which the Tribunal had just been giving attention to, 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 should like to read it again, and I'll read it. I am not sure it was read before as follows:
"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 GB 19, and is the official copy of the official proclamation of the Agreement between the German Government and the Government of the Federal State of Austria, on July 11, 1936, and I am almost certain that Mr. Alderman did read this document.