DR. HORN: In this case I will be satisfied with an affidavit.
The next witness is the former ambassador in Bucharest, Fabricius, presumably in Allied custody in the American zone of occupation or possibly already discharged from custody.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection in this case. Apparently this witness will speak as to an interview which is already in evidence before the Court and will give a different account of it. Prosecution makes no objection under the circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that.
DR. HORN: The next witness is Professor Karl Burckhardt, President of the International Red Cross in Geneva and formerly League of Nations Commissioner at Danzig.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Burckhardt is obviously in a very special position. As President of the International Red Cross he is a person to whom all belligerents, irrespective of country, are indebted; and the point that the Prosecution makes is that if he can speak of evidence coming from Hitler himself, that is if he can prove either by saying that he was informed by Hitler that the Defendant Ribbentrop had interceded; or if he can say he saw letters received by Hitler from Ribbentrop, the Prosecution would have no objection. If he is merely going to say that Ribbentrop told him so, the Prosecution would object.
Therefore, we submit that the reasonable course would be that he should make an affidavit as to his means of knowledge, and if that is done and if the means of knowledge are satisfactory, I should not think for a moment that the Prosecution would do anything but accept the evidence of Dr. Burckhardt.
The second point, we submit, is irrelevant: the question of the results of the English promises of guarantee to Poland on the position in Danzig.
DR. HORN: Aside from the reasons which I have already submitted in my application, I can also say that Professor Burckhardt visited Ribbentrop and Hitler in the year 1943 and therefore can make detailed statements with reference to the reasons which I have mentioned for calling him. That answers the first question by Sir David.
I also agree, however, in this case that Professor Burckhardt submit the necessary affidavit and thus be spared a personal examination.