HYPNOTIC SPELL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26113, 28 March 1946, Page 7

HYPNOTIC SPELL

INFLUENCE OF HITLER RIBBENTROP’S DEFENCE NOT A TYPICAL NAZI NUREMBERG, Mar. 26. Dr Martin Horn, opening Ribbentrop’s case at the War-Crimes Tribunal to-day, was interrupted by Lord Justice Lawrence, who ruled that he could not at this stage read a statement by Ribbentrop. Dr Horn had begun reading: “As Foreign Minister of the Reich, I carried out the directives of Adolf Hitler. I accept full responsibility for foreign political steps.” Dr Horn explained that Ribbentrop was suffering from a nasal complaint, and was prevented irom speaking. Dr Horn, therefore, wished to save his client, who would, however, be called to confirm all counsel’s statements. The United States prosecutor told the tribunal that the doctors had said Ribbentrop was not ill and was able to enter the witness box. Rippentrop was nervous, and appeared to be frightened. The first witness called by Dr Horn. Adolf von Steengracht, formerly assistant secretary in the German Foreign Office, said it was Ribbentrop’s view that Hitler did not want a Foreign Minister. All he needed was a foreign political secretary. Hitler threw reports from foreign experts into the waste-paper basket. * Steengracht said Hitler laid down Germany’s foreign policy to the most minute detail. Ribbentrop oiten commented that he was not needed in the capacity of Foreign Minister. Steengracht added that Hitler disliked the Foreign Office, which was regarded as a defeatist organisation. Hitler had said: “Diplomacy is treason, only to be used so long as it seems useful.”

Steengracht said that he did not regard Ribbentrop as a typical Nazi. Ribbentrop knew extraordinarily little of party doctrine. He felt himself bound only to Hitler, whom he followed with soldierly obedience. Ribbentrop was under a sort of hypnotic dependence on Hitler. Before Ribentrop's case opened Hess persisted in his refusal to give evidence on his own behalf. The tribunal then went into closed session to decide whether the justice or otherwise of the Treaty of Versailles was relevant in the trial. Sir David Maxwell Fyfe claimed that argument about Versailles was irrelevant after Hess’s counsel Dr Seidel, had submitted quotations from politicians and others who. criticised Versailles before the war. The tribunal agreed to decide the point after lengthy argument between Dr Seidel and Lord Justice Lawrence. After the adjournment Lord Justice Lawrence ruled that evidence designed to prove the Versailles Treaty unjust was inadmissible. Dr Seidel then announced that the case for Hess was completed. He f aid: “ I had every intention of calling the defendant to give evidence on his own behalf, but Hess’s attitude towards the competence of this court is adamant.