Jf. 11 ll..»

It sounds like it, yes. Do you remember Dr. Malan saying that at Pauresmith, reported in Die Burger on the 7th March, 1941? No, I don't remember it. No doubt he did. Let me read you one more thing. The following state- ment ; "Do not all at once either reject or accept the New Order of Advocate Pirow in its entirety, study it". B the way, what was the New Order of Advocate Pirow? A political move, but I am afraid that I will have to refresh in my mind before I give y^u details. I ... Shall we say quite short, this : A movement which supported the Nazis during the war? If you say sc. I don't know. I would h-i-ve to look up. Don't you know it? Don't you remember that advocate Pirow's movement wholeheartedly supported th^ Nazis during the war? It may have. You don't know it? I am not prepared to make a statement without refreshing my memory on these... You don't know that after his visit to Germany Advocate Pirow came back and said what a great man he thought Hitler was? That may be. You remember that? Actually, no. You don't remember it? I see. Anyway, let us go on. The speaker says "Don't accept or reject him in its entirety, study it. By analysing it we find first of all that with one exception there is nothing in it" - that is in Pirow1s New Order - "which has not been published in the Party's programme of principles and action". Now, let ther^ be no confusion. May I indicate to you that the Party referred to there is the Nationalist Party. "..or what would naturally proceed out of the foundation of a republic or what would n t be self-evident when the capitalistic system cumes to a fall here,

CI S 111 0 S "0 people expect that it will. You will find for instance, that we must accept the right attitude as regards the colour ques- CTSL/3

tion. The Party is quite definite about that, as about the Jewish quesxion". This is taken from Die Republikeinse orde,

and it is a declaration, a statement made by Dr. Malan. Do you recognise it? No, I do not recall it. Have you read this Die Republikeinse (Jrde? Yes. And did it contain such statements, statements to that effect? Speaking from memory, I should think, yes. You do kn:w the fact, of course, that Hitler's Government dissolved the Trade Unions? Yes. let me give you a speech mc.de, and let me ask y^u whe- ther you remember this? "The Nationalist Party regards Trade Unions as an evil and will abolish them". Do you remember Dr. G. E. N. Ross, Nationali t Party candidate for Johannesburg "est saying that in 1942? No, I don't remember the statement, but I knew opinions of that sort were expressed. Yes, by the Nationalist Party speakers? By speakers belonging to the Nationalist Party, yes. «re you suggesting that that has not been the endeavour of the Nationalist Party or the..? No, no. I am merely bexng careful to say exactly what I know at the moment. You weren't trying to find a distinction between that which you said and what I put to you? No, I am only being careful, as I say. Tould you dgr^e that Fascism and Nazism preaches the inevitability, and what is wor e, or whar is more, if you prefer me xo put it in that way, the desirability of war? Nazism did. I am not quite c.nvined that Fascism - yes, I think fascism did, too. Just in order to refresh your memory, lex me show you how much xh„ gentleman mentioned by you, Benito Mussolini, preached that. Perhaps if I gave you a staxement, a quotation, you might recognise it as being axtribuxed to Mussolini. "Above all, fascism believes neither in til- possibility nor in the utility of perpetual peace. 'Tar alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy c.nd puts the stamp of hobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it. Thus a doctrine which is founded upon this harmful postulate of peace is hostile to fascism". Nothing could be more clear than that, could it? Yes, one of Mussolini's speeches.. I don't know why you are so uncertain as to whether that was part of fascist ideology? I wanted to locate the exact reference as far as possible. 9 But didn't you in fact know ttu.t the fascists from beginning to end have always preached the glory of war, when I put the question to you initially? I think I could give you quotations, if I had time to look theia up, wh_.t Italian fascist writers, that is the real fascist writer, which modify their position in this regard, in which they differ from nazism and I am not sure to what extent that ... Fascism becomes modified from time to time? As all political doctrines. As does communism? Jommunism makes - a part of its tactics is to modify itself from time to time. That I don't believe was ever mentioned by you during the time you gave your evidence in chief? I think I referred to tactics, to communist tactics in tbk. course of... I am talking not about tactics. I am talkihg about expressions of policy. 7ar or peace. Those are not tactics, that is policy? In the communist literature that falls under tactics and strategy. ..'ar or peace - is that a master of policy or is it not? Yes. So it is policy for th- fascists and strategy for the communists? Both. Let us listen to Hitler on the same subject. "In eternal warfare, mankind has become great. In eternal peace h/t> - 41a. mankind would be ruined". Rem&mber that? That is the sort of thing that Hitler was saying, wasn't it? That is the sort of thing that he was saying constantly. Do you concede that a demand for peace and peaceful negotiation instead of war, is a demand made "by people, orga- nisations, parties, who are not communist and are in some instances even opposed to communism? Yes, there is a demand for peace over the "world. Is your answer to my question yes? Yes. Do you concede that such people, organisations, parties as I havo just described have condemned British action in Malaya, United States action in Korea and British action in North Africa? Do you concede that? —- Yes. Do you concede that such parties, organisations, people, who, as I have already pointed out, are not necessarily commu- nist and in some instances are opposed to communism, have supported the World Peace Movement and in so doing have allied themselves with the communist states that support it? — They supported the World Peace Movements in its beginnings but very soon people who were not associated with communists or the majority of people who were not associated with communists, separated themselves from the .Vorld Peace Movement and attendant propaganda for peace, _,nd did it inaependenxly. Now, an answer to my question is - my question was this. Did they or did they not support the Peace Movement, and in doing so did they ally themselves with the communist states that did support it? For a short time they sypported it... ./hat do you mean by a short time? How many years? I should imagine for about two years or so. No longer? Approximately That. "hen do ycu say they disassociated themselves? It was aboux 1952 when it became evidence - I beg your pardon, it was earlier. In 1950 it became evidence that the Bureau of 42a.

the World Peace Movement was controlled by communists and then many people separated themselves from it. So by 1955 this separation had already taken place? That separation had already taken place. Who is Thomas Mann? A very famous German novelist. Non-communist? AS far as I know, yes. I know him as a novelise, not in any other way. Do you deny that he supported the World Peace - the World assembly for Peace in 1955 - June the 22nd to June 29th? —— I have no evidence to it. Do you deny it, is my question? I have no evidence on the matter, I can't spekk about it. Who is Senator Georg Gayo Branting of Sweden? You know of him of course. Do you deny that he supported the World Assembly for Peace? I have no evidence on the point. But you have told us that the majority of these people organisations and parties, had divorced themselves from the World Peace Movement by 1952? Darge numbers. Oh, I see, now it is large numbers, not the majority? What do you mean now? Do you mean the majority or do you mean large numbers? Large numbers. That is better still. Do you know Pastor Martin Niemoeller? Yes. Very non-communist and anti-communist, not so? Yes Do you deny that he was one of the supporters in 1955? No evidence on it. Or Theodore Adams, Minister of the First Baptist Ch rch, or Professor Fletcher of Harvard University? Or Dr. Mordecai Johnson, President of Howard University? Or Professor William Robinson, Professor of Theology ^t Butler University, Indianapolis? Or the Reverend Archbishop Gustav Tura of the Lutheran Evangelical Church of Latvia, Dr. Ernst Wilm, President of the Evangelical ^hurch of West- 43a.

phalia, that is in Uestern Germany? Yes. Or Chandra Ghose the former Vice Chancellor of the Calcutta University, Member of the Planning Commission of the Indian Government. Do you know who I mean? Yes, I've heard of him. And Christopher Pry, of all people. Who is Christopher Pry? — - Statesman. Yes, and what is he? Writer, the English... Member of the communist party? Not that I know of. Benjamin Britten? Do youknow him? I .know his music. You know his music, yes. One of Great Britain's composers. And Hugh Casson? Yes, The famous architect? And Diego Rivera, a famous painter from Mexico? Yes. And Dr. Joseph Ne^dham, Pellow of the Royal Society? Do you know him? Yes. And Sir Venkata Raman, Pellow of the Royal Society and Nobel prize winner? Yes. Dr. Synge, biologist, and Nobel prize winner? It is quite an impressive list of nam^s I have given you. Is it not? Yes. These are people who are scientists, "writers, thinkers? Or would you hesitate to put them i to that category? Those I kn^w of, are of high standing. Yes. People who can think for themselves, or should be able to? —— I should think so. I should think so too. Anc". even Bertrand Russel, very anti-communist is he not? Yes. Bertrand Russel, regarded by some as being one of the greatest thinkers in England? That is so. Eduard Herriot, who is he? Sometime French Prime Minister, wasn't he? 6 J// 43a. phalia, that is in Uestern Germany? Yes. Or Chandra Ghose the former Vice Chancellor of the Calcutta University, Member of the Planning Commission of the Indian Government. Do you know who I mean? Yes, I've heard of him. And Christopher Pry, of all people. ?/ho is Christopher Fry? Statesman. Yes, and what is he? "Vriter, the English... Member of the communist party? Not that I know of. Benjamin Britten? Do youknow him? I know his music. You know his music, yes. One of Great Britain's composers. And Hugh Casson? -«— Yes. The famous architect? And Diego Rivera, a famous painter from Mexico? Yes. And Dr. Joseph Needhain, Fellow of the Royal Society? Do you know him? Yes. And Sir Venkata Raman, Fellow of the Royal Society and Nobel prize winner? — Yes. Dr. Synge, biologist, and Nobel prize winner? It is quite an impressive list of names I have given you. Is it not? Yes. These are people who are scientists, writers, thinkers? Or would you hesitate to put them i to that category? Those I knew of, are of high standing. Yes. People who can think for themselves, or should be able to? I should think so. I should think so too. And even Bertrand Russel, very anti-communist is he not? Yes. Bertrand Russel, regarded by some as being one of the greatest thinkers in England? That is so. Eduard Herriot, who is he? Sometime French Prime Minister, wasn't he? 44a.

That is right, one of the most prominent of Frenchmen? Jean Paul Sartre? A writer of books. And? A philosopher? He had his own peculiar philo- sophy? He has written on philosophy. Have you read his philosophical treatise? I don't think I have. You haven't? No. It might pay ycu to do so, because you might disagree with it as much as I do. But still, very anti-communist? Is that so. Don't you know it? He isn't a communist but he is very anti- - I have no detailed knowledge of him. Very anti-everything? And Pierre Cot? 'ho is he? Pierre Cot was the Frenchman very much a member - I thin Secretary of the 7'orld Peace Movement at that time. That is so? —- And I have heard him classified as a communist. You have heard him classified as such? If not a member of the Party, then he was... A fellow traveller? Certainly with communist tenden- cies. And Mrs. Rameshwari Nehru? Yes. Communist or non-communist? Don't know. well, what about Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth of Belgium? Communist or non-communist? I should imagine non- aormiiuni s t. I should imagine so too. And do you deny, and I have only given you a tithe of the nam^s of the persons who supported the 'Vorld Assembly for Peace - do yoa deny that these persons did so, or have you no knowledge on the matter? Some of them yes, and some of them I have no knowledge on the matter. You know, knowledge would have been very easily and readily obtainable by you, ho.d j^ou read some books and seen 45a.

who the members were. Have you ever done so? In cohnection with "Torld Peace? Yes? e are talking about the World Assembly for Peace? Yes. Have you read the book reporting it? Yes. You have? Yes. And despite having read that and despite having seen who the supporters were, you went on record as saying that by 1952 the majority of non-communists had divorced themselves from the V/orld Peace Movement? «— That may still be the case. That may still be the case? We 11, 'may' is Vory different from 'is', which is the manner in which you origi- nally expressed yourself. I wonder whether you will concede that attacks on communists and endeavours to smear opponents, political opponents with the label "communists1' is a technique which is generally employed by Fascists and Nazis? Would you concede that? Yes, I think one could concede that. Lastly, insofar as this aspect is concerned, I put it to you that there were many persons, organisations and people, non-communist and even anti-communist, wh have made a demand for peace and peaceful negotiation? Those people, persons and organisations have also from time to time indicated their belief in the possibility of peaceful co-existence between communist and non-communist states, have they not? Yes. Would you agree that your reading of speeches or examination of the local political scene, your reading of writings of prominent members of the present Government, indicates that they approved of National Socialism? That they supported and hoped for a victory by the Fascists and Nazis in the last war, and that they denigrated the South African soldiers fighting on the side of the allies? Would you just repeat the first two lines of your question? £ 46a.

I am not sure whether you refer to a Party or to persons? No, I just said prominent members of the present Go- vernment? I agree, some of them did. They approved of National Socialism, they supported and hoped for a victory by the Fascists and Nazis in the last war and they denigrated their own South African soldiers. When I asked you earlier what is meant by the expression "fellow traveller", you agreed with me that amongst other things a fellow traveller can be characterised as being an individual who, although not a member of the party or organisa- tion, supports that particular type of organisation. Do you remember saying that? Yes. Do you remember this speech? Or this extract from a speech? "We are not the enemies of Germany. We have always been f^ieds of the German people and the only White country that was our enemy was Britain" and the further statement : "General Smuts is afraid of the votes of the soldiers. Even the eyes of his own people are being opened in the North. They are only there to do the dirty work of the British soldiers". Do you know who said those two things? Or who was reported to have said those two things? No. Would you be surprised if it is our present Prime Minister, the Honourable J. G. Strijdom - who is reported as having said these things, and is so reported in Die Transvaler on august 26th and September 18th, 1942? Would it surprise you? I don't knew whether it wouxd sur- prise me or not. Do you know that that is the thing that has generally been said by prominent members of the present government, including Mr. Stri0dom? If it is a fact, then it is a fact that he said it. But does this come as a surprise to you here today that this is the sort of thing he said? Mr. Strijdom, no doubt, (o22! 47a.

has had to make many public speeches, and he may nave said things like that. I am putting to you a very simple question. I would like a simple answer. Does it come as a surprise to you, today, now, to hear that this is what he is alleged to have said? Surprise is hardly the word there. I can only say that I did not know that he ever said it at all. I don't know whether it is a surprise or not. I am not interested in it to be surprised cr not. You are not interested in being surprised? --- No, not in this case. Maybe in other cases. Is it the sort of thing that you would have expected

him to say as a result of your readin0s and your studied of the South African political scene over the last thirty- forty, fifty years? He may have said it. Is it the sort of thing which you would expect, is my question? -— I don't think I know enough of Mr. Strijdom's past history to know whether I would expect him to say it. I don't think he would say it today, possibly, but I don't know enough of his past history to know whether he would have said it then. You don't think he would say it today? I think you are probably quite right, because the cuttings from which I got these two statements, is headed as follows s It appeared in the Rand Daily Mail, and the heading is as

follows : "Things they wish they had never said". Maybe there is something in your statement that you don't think he would say it today. Let me give you something else. "If Germany wins the war, then we are in this position. Let me say here, in this fortunate position that Germany's war aim and our desire to get a republic in South Africa, are in agreement with one another, provided we make it clear to Germany that the people of South Africa repudiate General Smuts and his declaration nf war and his continuance of war. 48a.

In other words, if we lose the; war, we stand before the choice; of a republic or annexation, A republic may possibly satisfy Germany because she will say that the separation of a dominion from the Britisn Empire will weaken that Umpire, and that is their aim. She might say that she has no quarrel with us, and therefore be satisfied that we separate from the British Empire and form a republic". This is a quotation alleged to be from Dr. Malan speaking in th- House of Assembly on August the 30th, 1940, reported in Hansard 271. Re-member that? Yes. Here is another statement. "lou are conscripting money on sUv.li a scale as hc.s never been known before, './hen anyone goes to fight in a war, it will always be understood that he will be prepared to make a sacrifice. What is happening in ;ur country on a large scale today, is that people go to war because they not only have to sacrifice nothing so far as wages and salary are concerned, but because with the allowances for their families and otherwise they are able to make more money than ever before". You would agree that that is a somewhat slighting comment, a denigra- tion of South i.frican soldiers, isn't it? A slighting- comment, yes. Malan, allegedly speaking in the H.use of Assembly, reported in Hansard 2190, 1941. "The English in the Battle of *:7alm& in Napoleon's day, t.ok flight in their boats and left th^ir Dutch allies in the lurch. Just as the English left their French and Belgian allies in the lurch and Dunkirked". Do you remember reading that? No. Mr. Olivier, Nationalist Member of arliament for Kuruman, speaking in the House of assembly, reported in Hansard, 275. And lastly, I don't want to go through all the cuttings, "We must let the loyal Dutchman with his borrowed loyalty," C^ 3 •JO yn *

- The loyal Dutchman, I take it, "being the man who is fighting Fascism and Nazism in the ranks of the South African army - "7e must let the loyal Dutchman with his borrowed loyalty feel that he is a branded renegade, and a social castaway if he eoes not stop his despicable game, and behave like a true Afrikaner. He is being used to do dirty work, and will be treated like dirty water". Do you know who said that, or is alleged to have said that? No. Mr. Erie Louw, reported in Die Burger of 2.12.1940. However, you do agree - or there is just one thing that I must draw your attention to, I won't conceal the source. This is the Declaration of "ohe Federal Council on future policy as set out by Dr. Malan under the title Die Republikein- se Orde, "The National Socialistic system, which apart from dictatorship% only allows the existence of one party and will not tolerate any divergent opinion, has undoubtedly performed wonders in Germany". Do you remember reading that in Die Republikeinse Orde? I don't think - is that the book, Republican Order, or is - it is a b^ok. A brochure issued by Mr. Erasmus, former Minister of Defence, in 1941. Do you remember reading that? That is my question? The statement, I don't remember reading that. Statements like that were made. Statements were made supporting National Socialism, indicating support for the Government for the Fascists and the Nazis in the war and the desire for their victory; indicating a denigration of South African soldiers fighting against the Fascist and Nazis? Indicating support of the Government...? Support of the Fascist and Nazis..? Oh, Fascist Government. Do you call people who make statements of that sort fellow travellers, having regard to the definition that yju have already conceded? I wouldn't call them fellow travellers. They may have had sympathies with them, but I wouldn't call them fellow travellers. One doesn't know to what extent they may have actua ly assisted the pesition. A fellow traveller, as I said before ... Are you seriously trying to suggest that in a country which is at war, when there is a certain section of ch« popula- tion which is openly campaigning against the war, that that is not of assistance to the enemy? Is it or is it not of assistanc to the enemy? It may be of indirect assistance to the enemy, but that does not make them fellow travellers... I am not interested in wheth-r it is direct in the form of pounds, shillings or pence or armaments. I am asking you is that or is that not assistance to the enemy? It may be of assistance to the enemy... It may be? But it doesn't make them fellow tra- vellers, '.Thy may be..? Is it or is it not? There are all kinds of conditions I could imagine that would not be of assistance. History is a long term thing .., Don't let us worry abouc history, let us worry about present facts. If in a country which is at war, there is a certain section composed in some instances of people who are highly regarded, who by their speeches, their behaviour, their utterances, do everything that they can in order to hinder the war effort, is that or is that not of assistance to the enemy? . It would be of assistance to the enemy but that ... That is all I wanted to know? ...But that does not make them fellow travellers. Did you or did you not concede to me very early today, that amongst the definitions of fellow traveller, one could place that person who supports, although not a member of a particular party or organisation, supports the particular party or organisation. Did you say that or did you not? I did. It depends on what kind of support, of course. '51® •

Did you give me that qualifica ion when I first asked you that question? No, it was not then called for. No, of c.urse not. You See, when I am talking aboat fellow travellers of Fascism or Nazism, I have in mind people or organisations or parties that supported, if only verbally, and vocally express their hopes for a German victory, and couple with that denigrated South African and English soldiers who were fighting against Fascism and Nazism. On top of that, accepted the Nazi idea of herrenvolkism. On top of that accep- ted the Nazi idea of abolition of trade unions. Would you say that those are fellow travellers or not? — They may have assisted. Fellow travellers to my mind means more, it me, ns a more direct form of assistance, I think that is it, a direct form of assistance.

So therefore% if an individual who is not a member of the communist party, but publicly would acclaim his adherence to the principles of communism and Marxism, and who publicly were to say that other persons would be well advised to adhere to such principles, who made that statement publicly and on all occasions possible, would you or would you not call him a fellow traveller? No, I ould call a fellow travel- ler the man who actively assisted and co-operated with that party to - who does something active. Not just by talking? No, that is one of the points. Not just by talking. You have on a couple of occasions, when I have been asking you what has been the attitude of the Nationalist Party in certain spheres, f r instance the war sphere, so far as the application of herrenvolkism is concerned, drawn a distinction between the utterance made by a member of the party and the party's official policy, have you not? Yes. So that which the member of the party says, is not necessarily the party's official policy? Not necessarily. Now you do know, of course, that the Ossewa Brandwag openly supported the Fascists and Nazis during the war. There

•were number of prosecutions of 04B. members and they them- selves in their literature indicated that they stood for National Socialism? Certainly they published things in that line. What their official policy is, I don't know. How do you gauge their official policy? By state- ments. Statements made at their meetings in which policy is decided? At their meetings and probably in their printed constitution. That is how you gauge the policies of organisations? Yes, You do know, of course, that the Afrikaner Party absorbed the Ossewa Brandwag into its ranks, this was just before 1948, and that thereafter the Nationalists made an alliance with the Afrikaner Party just prior to the 194 elections? I know the Nationalist Party made an alliance with the Afrikaner

Party. How many of the O.B,*s went into the Afrikaner Party alliance I don't know. But wasn't there a lot of talk about it in the news- papers, that the Ossewa Brandwag is going out of existence and that they were being invited to merge themselves - the members were being invited to merge themselves with the Afrikaner Party? Yes, how many did, I don't know. I am not interested in what they did. I am interested in whether that was the principle? They were invited to merge. And with that knowledge that the Ossewa Brandwag had been invited to merge themselves with the Afrikaner Party, an alliance was made between the Nationalist Party and the Afri- kaner Party for the purpose of the elections? Whether it was done for the purposes of the election. . . . It was done just before the elections, so I "Chink we can gather what the reason was? Correct? That is what happened? Tas it done just before the elections? Yes, don't y.u know that? One has to look at these references before.. I thought you had been keeping yourself very well acquair ted with the local political scene over the last few years? The 1003,1 political scene plus the world scene needs a lot of careful referencing. One can't remember everything... Dr. van Rensburg you know was the leader, I think they call it Commandant-General, of the Ossewq, Brandwag, was he not? . Yes. That at least you do know? Yes. Do you know that he now holds a high position with the Nationalist Party? Does he? Don't ask me questions. Say "yes" or"'no", or "I don't know". That would be an answer? He has done work on commissions, but I don't know what his position in the Nationalist Party is, quite frankly. You don't know. Is he Chairman of the Group Areas Board? Yes. In any event, I am quite likely to be corrected, it is not a high position in the Nationalist Party, it is a high position in the Government. That would be a better terminology to use? Yes. Let me read you something else under th~ heading "Things they wish they had never said", reported in the Rand Daily Mail, 16th April, 1948. "I believe thc.t many innocent people have been interned. If there are people who are guilty, then they are Dr. van Rensburg and oth r O.B. leaders. They have continually maintained that the republic cannot be attained in constitutional ways, '"'hat way other than violence can there then be?" Do you remember that statement being made by the Honourable Mr. Strijdcm, Uur Prime Minister? I don't remember that statement, but statements like that wer made. i.nd despite the fact, therefore, that Mr. Strijdom recognised that the Ossewa Brandwag scood for a change of sxate form by the employment of violence, they still made an alliance with the Afrikaner rarty. Correct? Yes. Tell me, let us shift from the local scene, when did Eire attain its independent and its republican status? I can't give you the exact date. I am asking you, becciuse I don't know myself? In the twenties, surely? Yes, after the war..? *.fter the First 7orld War had be-en concluded. And that was after a long campaign of terrorism, vio- lence, fighting, shooting, wasn't it? There was a campaign of a/iolence and shooting going on then. And it was - th._.t v/as the means by which they ultimately obtained their independent status? Certainly one of the means, I am not... One of the means. I wonder whether you wouxd agree with me if I suggest to you that before th~ Nationalist Party came into power, they preached basically these three things ; "Their determination to change the state form by the creation of a republic". "Their determination to break away from Great Britain and to do away with the British Parliamentary system" - I have already quoted that to you, remember? "And their readiness TO bring about these changes by the use of force and violence if need be?" Would you agree that that was the object, the expressed object, of the Nationalist Party? Are you referring to the last time bhey came into po?/er, or the first xime, in 1923 or '24? You say the last - the present Government? No, no. Before the last time they came inuc power? y fcr. by the Honourable Mr. Strijdcm, ^ur Prime Minister? I don't remember thax statement, but statements like xhat wer made. And despite the fact, therefore, that Mr. Strijdom recognised that the Ossewa Brandwag stood for a change of sxate form by the employment of violence, xhey still made an alliance with the Afrikaner rarty. Correct? Yes. Tell me, let us shift from the local scene, when did Eire attain its independent and ixs republican status? I can't give you the exact date. I am asking you, because I don't know myself? In the twenties, surely? Yes, after the war..? After the First Torld War had been concluded. And that was after a long campaign of terrorism, vio- lence, fighting, shooting, wasn't it? The re was a campaign of violence and shooting going on then. And it was - that was the means by which they ultimately obtained their independent sxatus? Certainly one of the means, I am nox... X One of the means. I wonder whether you wouxd agree with me if I suggest to you that before th~ Nationalist Party came into power, xhey preached basically these three things ; "Their determination to change the state form by the creation of a republic". "Their determination to break away from Great Britain and to do away wixh Xhe British Parliamentary system" - I have already quoted that to you, remember? "And their readiness to bring abouX these changes by the use of force and violence if need be?" Would you agree that that was the object, the expressed object, of the Nationalist Parxy? Are you referring to the last time xhey came inXo power, or the first xime, in 1923 or '24? You say the last - the present Government?

No, no. Before the last time they came into power? '7ould you take those points one by one? Their determination to change the state form? To a republic, yes. 'Vhich involves therefore the breaking of the British connection and their determination to d- away with the British Parliamentary system? I am not happy about that, because there are speeches, quotations which I could give you, in which leading members said that they would retain a parliamen- tary form of Government. There are other speeches in which they said they wanted to change the form, th t I know. But you can'-t really judge -what the. objects of an organisation or a party is from merely reading speeches of individuals? One would have to weigh up the evidence and see under what conditions these speeches were made. Y/ho weighs up the evidence? You? I woald certainly take .., Novi/ in weighing up the evidence there, what would you say, was there an expressed determination t. do away with the British Parliamentary system? -— I have not got the evidence before me, and I ... *ou know..? At the present moment I want to say just one thing, that statements were made b.th ways. You suggest that the British Parliamentary system was to be retained within the framework of the republic? That was said. And quite contrary views wer'e expressed also? Yes.\ And you yourself don't know which is the official view? I don't even know whether there is an official view on that point. Anyway, the \,hird one I wanted to put to you was their readiness to bring about these changes in state form, by the employment of force and violence, if need be? Surely there are - again I can recall statements which I could find J \J\-1J * of speecnes made by leaders who have made the point that if we have a republic, it must come by constitutional means. Yes? And others whe said that if we can't obtain the republic by constitutions means, we arc justified in using force and violence? For .he moment, I am not sure... •'ere such statements made? I am not sure whether tney were made by leading members of the Party. That is my worry. I would like to see the conditions under which the were made, you see. Are you repudiating the suggestion that such statements were made by leading members? I am not repudiating any- thing* I would like the facts before me. You are not repudiating it? veil, you have told us that you have read ant. studied the Republican order, let me read you some extracts from it. Extracts, I should say, from a speech made by Dr* Malan, in which first of all he deals with the facts, the policy. One of ohe things he says, is that "the Party will faithfully carry out its undertaking to br^ng a republic into being. This may come 'to pass under favourable conditions which may be created for it by the course of war which will certainly onl be possible if Airik^nerdom has learnt to stand together and trust its leaders. If this way remains closed, it will have to happen along the only other possible way, namely that followed by Ireland". What other possible way is he thinking of there, if that is what he said? I chink the point there is to what extent the Irish adopted a republican form threUg,. force. Force no doubt played a part in it, but I have no idea what was at the back of his mind when he said that. It was common knowledge, I don't know how old you are, but I was certainly adult at the cime that the Irish trouble arose. I think you were. And it was common knowledge at that time that Ireland was a troubled country and was troubled because those who wanted their republic and a severance of the 3/ > I ^ "

British connection were prepared to Take arras and in fact had taken arras. Y u remember the Black and Tans? Yes. ""hat were they sent to Ireland for by the British? I assume to maintain peace and ordor. Yes, and to shoot, if necessary? If necessary. And to fight who? -he Irishmen, presumably. So that Ireland was in those dciys a very, very troubled country, was it not? "e all knew it? I am not yet convin- ced that Dr. Malan may have meant that. I want the documents before me to judge. "rell, I'll give you some more of thoee extracts, because this is not something that he said once. It is something that ho said many times. "The Republic would be won along the road in which Ireland had gained it, and if we could get it before that time, we could do all in our power to realise our ideal. It will ultimately be within our reach. If all this was gained then there would be their new order. The new order of the Herenigde Nationale Party. Then what they would have brought about was n thing less than a revolution". BY THE COURT : Are you quoting from extracts from newspaper reports? BY MR. BERRANGE ; No. BY THE COURT : fell, now, you are basing your questions on the assumption that Dr. Malan did say these things? BY MR. BERRi.NGE : My question in r«g:.rd to every one of these matters was based - was prefaced by a suggestion "If this is what was said" or alternatively by saying "This is allegedly what Was said". If the witness... BY THE COURT : If... BY MR. BERoANGE : Your Worship BY THE COURT : Express an opinion ...

BY MR. BERRANGE : Your Worship ... If the witness who has read this is not able to identify it, then, of course, I mast prove it in another way .... . 58a.

BY THE COURT s What I want to say is this: That unless it can be phown that Dr. Malan made these statements the evidence that is now being given will be worthless on this aspect. BY MR. BERRANGE . It is for that reason that I intimated that unless the witness can testify to it, I will have to prove it in another way. BY THE COURT : It is not that Dr. Malan did make these state- ments - it is whether he has been rep rted to h-.ve made these statements? BY MR. BERR^.NGC : Yes, yes, and my question is "If this is what he said what was he talking about". Let us get back to Ireland again... BY THE COURT : Yee, perhaps the Court can draw its conclusions from the data that you have placed before the Court if it can be shown that these statements were, in fact, made. BY MR. BERR^NG..: : I don't understand you. BY THE COURT : I think it will be competent for the Court to draw its own conclusions. The witness is not really being asked now to express an opinion on the subject on which he professes to be an expert and I think the Court would be in a position to draw a conclusion. I think it is the function of the Court to draw conclusions on the data Chat is placed before it. I don't know whether it would help us at all to got the witness to express his opinion... BY MR. BERRANGE : I understood that this witness was an expert on political philosophy in regard to which .... BY THE COURT : Yes, I don't know what the last question has to do with political philosophy....

BY MR. BERRhNGE : But I should have imagined that in political philosophy one has got to have some knowledge of politics and of the political scene and, indeed, I prefaced my ques- tions to uhis witness about that and I have asked him what his reading was in regard thereto. BY THE COURT : I am ju.t saying that I just can't sea the evidence elicited in this form would be of any value at all. The Court would have to draw its own inferences. BY MR. BERRANGE : Well, in due course, we can see what v.lue the Courts will attach to it. "With regard to the obtaining of a republic, if war ha not been there, there would hav- been only one way open for us. And under certain circumstances, it may als; be the only i way for us after the war, namely the way taken by Ireland". I won't, in view of His Worship's remarks, ask you what you think the speaker meant. What I will ask you is, what was the way taken by Ireland? You renumber the I.R.A.? Yes. Jho were they? I do .'t know what the name stands for. They were Irish people who fought, who decided to fight for their freedom. Formed themselves into an army? Yes, an army. Armed? Pistols, rifles, and machine guns? Yes. For what purpose? To h..ve Ireland declared as a republic. And for how many years was there a battle going on between chem and the British agents, Black and Tans and British soldiers? I don't qmite know when the I.E.A. was formed. A number of years? Very many years. So what do you say was the way taken by Ireland to obtain a republic, by peaceful constitutional means, or violence, unconstitutional means? AS far as I remember my reading of that, there were also constitutional attempts and agitation to ^et the. -^rish question settled. Coupled .'ith. ..? Violence. Violence extending over years? Years. In which hundreds of people were killed; in which f(~\UUWr • pitched battles w.re fought? Correct? Yes. Systematic violence? Organised violence. Systematic, was my question, not organised? Syste- matic violence, yes. Systematic violence. So that was the way taken by Ireland. Talking about the democratic tradition, do you suggest that it is consistent with Western European democratic tradition, to deny equal rights to all citizens of the state? It depends on the question of definition of citizen, of course. But in formal definition, democracy involves equal political rights to all citizens. Do you suggest that it is consistent with Western European democratic tradition to subject a portion of the people in a state to an inferior position and status? There has been in the past under even democratic conditions institutions of class... May I be so rude as to interrupt you? My words were not democratic conditions, my words were democratic tradi- tions? There are in the democratic traditions cases in which citizens were divided into classes. One was in France, / just at the Revolution and after, and I think the told Trans-/ vaal Republic had first and second class citizens. / Please, would you answer my question. I don't care which way you answer it, whether you answer yes or whether you answer no, it doesn't make any difference to me. I only want to know v/hether you say it is consistent with western European democratic tradition to subject a portion of the people of the state to an inferior position or status? To an inferior position or status, no. And iaongst the ways in which the people of the state could so be subjected to an inferior position or status, would be by withholding from them the right to vote and the right to participate in the government of their country? If they were full citizens, yes. What does that qualification mean? What was the necessity for the use of that adjective? Which adjective? You nev^r used that adjective when you conceded to me that the denial - th.t the subjection of a portion of the people of the state to an inferior position or status is inconsistent with :Testern European democratic tradition. Have you just thought of the addition of this adjective? Which adjective is that? Full citizens? •Full1, That adjective. Have you just thought of it? No, I had it in mind all the time. Then I am going to take you back again. You can either repudiate the evidence which you have given, or you can adhere ^o it. Do you suggest that it is consistent with Western European demogyatig tradition to subjegt a portion of the people of a s"fca"tje to an inferior position or status? if they are full citizens it -would be, hut the Western tradition has this experience, I am talking of historical tradition now, that people in the state are not always capable of full citizenship or the most advanced citizenship and therefore they nad to make class distinctions on occasions Did you give me that answer when I first asked you the question? You were asking... You gave me unequivocal agreement to my question

without referring to the matter of full citizens. Now you

say you had it in mind all the time? Is that true? You were asking a formal question, and in general principles, my first answer stands. Did you say in general principles? Did you add these words? That was assumed in my answer. You asked a general question ... X^nd what was assumed in the answer TOO was the adjec- tive "full citizens"? Your question was a general question which implied a general answer. BUT when it comes to detailed 61a.

What does that qualification mean? 'That was the necessity for the use of that adjective? Which adjective? You nev^r used that adjective when you conceded to me that the denial - th .t the subjection of a portion of the people of the state to an inferior position or status is inconsistent with Testern European democratic tradition. Have you just thought of the addition of this adjective? Which adjective is that? Full citizens? 'Full1. That adjective. Have you just thought of it? No, I had it in mind all the time. Then I am going to take you back again. You can either repudiate the evidence which you have given, or you can adhere it. Do you suggest that it is consistent with Western European demogyatig tradition to subject a portion of the people of a s'fca'tje to an inferior position or status? • If they are full citizens it would be, hut the Western tradition has this experience, I am talking of historical tradition now, that people in the state are not always capable of full citizenship or the most advanced citizenship and therefore they had to make class distinctions on occasions. Did you give me that answer when I first asked you the question? -«— You were asking. ., You gave me unequivocal agreement to my question without referring to the matter of full citizens. Now ycu say you had it in mind all the time? Is that true? You were asking a formal question, and in general principles, my first answer stands. Did you say in general principles? Did you add these words? That was assumed in my answer. You asked a general question ... x^nd what was assumed in the answer too was the adjec- tive "full citizens"? Your question was a general question, which implied a general answer. Sut when it comes to detailed -62 a/, matters, one has to qualify, one has to use particulars and I am now saying that ,/estern tradition has come up before a particular situation where it actually has - righcly or wrongly - it has had to make distinctions between citizens. And don't you subscribe then, you yourself, subscribe, to the principle "that the poorest that lives has as true a right to give a vote as well as the richest and greatest"?

Don't you subscribe to that principle? There it is not a matter of poor, there may be other qualifications that are necessary for citizenship. The word ... Do you subscribe to that principle, yes or no? The principle being...? Do you want me to read it again? The last bit, yes "The poorest that lives has as true a right to give a vo^e as well as the righest and greatest^? On the basis of poor as a citi&en, yes, I subscribe to that principle. COURT ADJOURNS. fLeave granted to Accused No, 62, Mary Rantlia, to be absent). iff OUR T RESUMES : MR. COaK-LR ADDRESSES COURT : fLeave granted to ..caused 98, D. B. Lee Warden and No. 148, D, Shanley to be absent). ANDREW HO/SON MURRAY, under former oath; CROSS-EXaMINATION BY MR. BIRRANGE CONTINUED : Before the luncheon adjournment, I was asking you whether there were a number of ways in which people in a state could be subjected to an inferior status and position. And one of the ways in which I suggested they could be so sub- jected is by withdrawing from them - withholding from them the right to vote by participating - or to participate in the government of their country. Now, would you agree or would you concede, that one of the ways in which such people could be subjected to an inferior status or position in the country in "which they live, would be by denying them the right of election to the tribunals of their country? Yes. Would you concede that another way in which they could be subjected to such an inferior status and position would be on by giving them, or actually forcing/them and education inferior to that enjoyed by the other portion of the population? Forcing on them yes. Or giving them? Giving may mean acceptance by consent, - I don't know. Ihe word forcing I quite agree." I am not talking about their acceptance. I am talking about providing for them, or forcing on them, either one, that could subject them to an inferior position or status? Yes, And another way in which this could be done would be by imposing on them restrictive and discriminatory laws to which the other portion is not subject? Yes. And another way in which they could be so degraded to an inferior status or position, would be by forcing them to carry documents of identity which are not required of the other portion of the population and making a failure to carry such documents a criminal offence? Making a failure a criminal offence, yes. Carry documents, to make an example, I am not sure of. Because when I was a student in Paris we all had to carry identity cards and I don't know that it was a matter of inferiority. I admit it could be done that way, but it need not be, the carrying of a document need not, but I admit it could. That was the position also when I was in Germany. What I am talking about is forcing them to carry documents of identity which are not required of the other portion. That is the distinction I draw. In both Prance and in Germany, everybody had to carry these documents, not so? Not in Prance. "~Te carried them there as students from outside. The people themselves didn't have to... 64-a..

You weren't a citizen, were you? No. You carried them as students from outside. Please let us attend to my question. I am talking about the citizenary of the country itself. Porcing one section to carry docu- ments, which xhe other section hasnot got to carry, I suggest to you is one of the ways in which they Cc.n be subjected to an inferior status? --- I agree. And, particularly, if making a failure to carry these documents is a criminal offence? I agree. And another way of subjecting them to an inferior posi tion or status would be by denying to one portion of the public freedom of movement? Yes. Which is accorded to the oth.r portion? Yes. Would you suggest that it is consistent with the Western European democratic tradition to forcibly remove sections of the population from their place of birth, employ- ment, residence and so uprooting and removing them against their will? If you put an emphasis on the "forcibly", yes. Yes, I am talking about forcibly. Let there be no mis understanding, by "forcibly" I mean by cirtue of legislation that has been passed and which is imposed upon one section and not the other. You agree with that? Yes. Do you consider that it is consistent with Western European democracie tradition to make laws under which persons can be banished to and detained in defined areas without judicial process of any hearing? Completely with- out judicial process and hearing, yes. And partially without judicial process or any hearing? In thcit partially? Democracy demands... You raised the point. I never spoke about completely or partially. You are the gentleman who raised the point? Democracy demands a judicial hearing. LJXj

So that would also not be consistent with the Western European democratic tradition. If you will forgive me, I to would like to go back/a point that we dealt with earlier this morning. You have indicated that the Peace Movement, is a Movement which was inspired by and came under the control of the communist countries and, I think, you went on to say that as the result of that, certain of the original adherents left? Yes. Those persons who didn't leave, and who are not commu- nists, or those organisations which fall into that same category in so allying themselves with the communist states who supported the Peace Movement, and in also participating in the condemnation of British action in Malaya, United States action in Korea and French action in North Africa, and that type of thing, would you say that they are fellow travellers of communism? The word fellow traveller is ... I asked you to define it, you know? I gave no definition. I described it this morning. I said I couldn't define it, I described it. Some of them may be fellow travel- lers and others not. Some may be, and some may be not. But that is not my - question. My question is, as follows : Is the alliance of such persons and organisations with the communist coun- tries who support the Peace Movement and with the consequent condemnation of British action, American action and French action in Malaya, Korea and North Africa, is such conduct consistent with being called a fellow traveller? I must repeat my reply. It may be, and it may not be. The distinc- tion between such conduct is so general, that some people who act that way may be regarded as fellow travellers, and others... Byvirtue of their adherence to the Peace Council or not? Possibly through their activities in and through the kZUst) 66a.

Peace Council. I am Talking of nothing else eth~r than their adhe- rence to this Peace Council. Do you suggest that that makes them fellow travellers? After certain developments in the Peace Council, I am inclined to think so. You are inclined to think that because they have, rightly or wrongly, supported the Peace Movement, which you say and in so doing have allied themselves with the communist states who supported the Peace Movement, that such adherence to the Peace Movement makes them fellow travellers? Yes, it was not really a particular Peace Movement, not a Peace Movement. No, no. The World Peace Congress? Yes. That makes them fellow travellers? Yes. Although they do nothing active other than by spoken or v/ritten word to indicate their association with the Peace Movement? That - It is on that point that I hesita- ted, because I did not quite know what you meant by "adhering to". I should imagine there are various ways of "adhering to and .... Let me make myself clear. Adhering to the Peace Movement..? May I just finish my reply? There are some ways of "adhering to" which would make them fellow travellers and other ways of "adhering to" which would not make them fellow travellers. 1 think that... Let me say what I mean by adhering to. By that I mean persons who verbally, or in writing, not by any other deeds, action or conduct, adhere to and support the Peace Movement and repudiate British action, United States action, and French action in the various countries. Does that make them fellow travellers? I would want to see the words they used, che form they expressed themselves, the facts they mentioned and the arguments they used. I could see myself or 67a.

anybody supporting that Peace Movement in principle, and not in such a way as to be a fellow traveller. On the other hand, I can imagine a person supporting that Peace Movement and being a fellow traveller. So can I, But again you are evading my question. You say that you can imagine yourself supporting the Peace Move- ment. Can you imagine yourself condemning British action in Malaya, or United States action in Korea? If the facts justify the condemnation, yes. On the facts as we know them. The facts as you know them? The position of Malaya and Korea is different, of course. Well, either. Either one or both? Does the Court want me to give my personal opinion,.. I am asking you to do so fcr the benefit of the Court? •••— My personal opinion of these cases? Yes? In thecase of Malaya, yes. In the case of Korea in a qualified way. "Yes", and what is yes? Yes to what? You can imagine giving your support? My support yes, I could imagine giving my support. In the condemnation of British action there? In the support of British action there. And French action in North Afr_ca? French action in North Africa one has very little facts on. I do not know what the position is. You would rather not answer? I hesitate to make , comments on current contemporary political positions without I data before me. I am not sure that it is expected of me. I May I get baek to my question. Do you suggest that i, the mere adherence to the Peace Council, which you say is communist controlled and communist inspired, adherence in 68a.

the sense of not doing any other than to write and talk in support of the Peace Council, would make a person a fellow traveller? That and nothing else? Again, I must repeat my previous reply to that question. As I said before, it depends what the man writes and what he talks. In some way he may talk in such a way as to make him a fellow traveller and in.... You mean because of the language he uses? No, the contents of the language he uses. Assuming John Jones gets up and says publicly, at a public meeting which is called : "I support the World Peace Council. I support the stand that the World Peace Council has taken; I support it even though it is allied with the communist states; I support it in concemning British action in Malaya; I support it in concemning American action in Korea; I support it in condemning French action in North Africa". If a man got up and said that, would you say he is a fellow traveller? In terms of what you think of a fellow

traveller to be? Not necessarily. I may be, but not necessarily. A socialist very often adopts - agrees with sections of communist doctrine, and yet you would not call certain branches of socialism - you would not call them fellow travellers. It depends upon what he actually is? It depends on what he means, and I would want more information... If that is what he says, nothing else? On that basis I could not come to a conclusion. So mere support of an organisation, even though it disagrees with your views, in itself will not make a man a fellow traveller? It depends what the "mere support" is. The emphasis there is on the word "mere" of course. What it includes and what it excludes. 69a.

Support in the sense that he publicly and freely pro- claims his support of the organisation which you say is a communist organisation? Not necessarily. It doesn't necessarily make him a fellow traveller? I agree. What have you got to look to before he now does become a fellow traveller? If one has concrete examples... Nc, I am talking on the question of principle? I am not giving any examples? "hat does one look to in such cases before that individual can be termed by you to be a fellow traveller in principle? As I said befcre, the word fellow traveller is a popular word and a loosely used word. I would want to know that there is a certain amount of consistency in the way he supports, in his verbal support of the society or the movement.

In the way in which he..? Supports. You mean that if he consistently supports it, he then becomes a fellow traveller? You interrupted me in the middle of a sentence there. I am trying to find out what you are saying? I would say firstly that before calling him a fellow traveller, I would want to see that there is a certain amount of consis- tency in his support, and, secondly, whether he does not support that movement merely in certain of its aspects, but as a whole. And, thirdly, that he would be prepared also in the case of need to act or be willing to act. That is the kind of person I would call a fellow traveller. That he would be consistent in his support and that he would be prepared to act? Now what do you mean by being prepared to act? That depends on the circumstances. What do you mean? You used the expression, I am trying to find out what you are talking about? If that 70a*

man is prepared to give up some of his.... T. HE COURT MR. BSRRANGE DISCUSS THE TREND OF CROSS- EXAMINATION. BY MR. BSRRaNGE J What is your reply? Oh, yes, what makes a fellow traveller? I would further say that if he was prepared to,... No, no. Don't go further. Let us finish the one point first. You spoke about consistency and the action that he takes. I am asking you, when you talk about action, what action have you in mind when you use that sentence? It the man was prepar .d to spend some of his pocket money to support that movement or was prepared to organise meetings and take an active part in propagating the ideas of t)aat movement, Ivd be inclined to think - I may call him a fellow traveller. But if he doesn't spend his pocket money, but merely supports it by public statements from public platforms, then you would be in doubt? If there is nothing more to it, yes. So the operative thing is how much pocket money he spends? I mention that as one of many, many possible examples.... What do you mean by saying if he is consistent in his support? By that 1 mean I think, whether he not only continues supporting the particular movement, but whether in sujoport with that movement he is in agreement with the other possible political or principles which he has, principles on other aspects of life... It comes back to what I suggested a moment ago? That you would have to do is find out what the man is himself, what his beliefs are? Not what he is, but what he thinks.. What his beliefs are? ''That his attitude of mind is 71a.

So then it is a question of the expendiUure of money, and it is also cased upon the question as to whether or not you can establish what his general beliefs are? That is not a summary of my statements. I will let you finish your statements, but those are two so far? I did not stipulate the expenditure of money as the only form of action.... I never suggested that..? It wasn't a case of the expenditure of money, I mentioned that as an example of numerous type3 of action by which somebody could support a movement. Numerous types of action by which somebody could support a movement, such as the expendixure of pocket money? «-«-- Such as - one example. Or such as preaching on behalf of the movement from a platform? That you think is far less dangerous - far less dangerous than to fall into the category of fellow traveller? I am not considering the danger of the matter. I am busy with the word fellow traveller. Yes, so am I. That is what we are talking about. Both of us, I hope. You suggest that the public preaching in support of the Tcrld Peace Movement in itself is far less harmful - harmful to those that are opposed to the Peace Movement - the.n the expenditure of pocket money? No, 1 made no suggestion like that. •Yell then, I ^ish you would be so good as to tell us now, once and for all, what tests you would apply where you find a man supporting thu Peace Movement, allying himself therefore with the communist countries who support it, con- demning British action, French action, American action in the various territories or colonies, what do you demand other than thdt before you can say that he is a fellow traveller? I made the mention of three features, but as regards 72a.

preaching it depends what he preaches and how he preaches. I mentioned that before. The content of the words are impor- tant . Well, if the contents are merely generally "I call upon you, the public, to support the "."orId Peace Movement. This is a good organisation. It is an organisation which is intended for the benefit of the world at large. I call upon you to support it". Does that make him a fellow traveller? It may, if other features agree with that and he is not inconsistent... Such as consistency? I have mentioned the other features. Consistency? Yes. What other features? Active support by way of - I mentioned one example... Active support by way of expenditure of pocket money? Possibly, it is one way. He has got to spend money as well as indicate his vocal support before he becomes a fellow traveller? I repeat myself, not necessarily money. He may organise meetings... Yes, he may organise meetings? That is one type of many possible activities.

So that it is the actual organisation and expenditure of money that makes him a fellow traveller, not because he tells the world at large "Here is a very nice organisation, everyoody please j-in it"? That is where you have been driven to, isn't it? No. W--11, I don't know where you are being driven to. Tell me, you remember the; Reichstag Fire trial? Yes. That was a urial that took place in '35 or '36, wasn't it? 1935 I think it is - 1933? I beg your pardon. It is quite right, 1933• That, as bZjLrf 73a.

you know, waB an endeavour on the part of the Nazi Government to fasten the blame for che buring of the Reichstag on communists. Correct? That was the reports, certainly. I take it that you accept those reports? -i— Yes. It was an attempt that was unsuccessful? Yes. I think you have already tcld us earlier in your evidence that you conceded that attacks on communists and endeavours to smear opponents with the label communists, was a technique employed by Nazis? You told us that, didn't you? Yes. I am sure that you have not been only a reader of Shelley, but also an admirer? Yes. A great poet. One of the greatest English poets? Yes, a great poet when he was good. He was not always good. And when he was bad, he was horrid? Terrible. However, there is one very good poem, which I think you must remember, called "The Masque of Anarchy". Remember it? Yes. I would like to quote to you a few verses from it. "Let a vast assembly be, and with great solemnity declare with measured words, that ye are as God made ye, free. Be your strong and simple words keen to wound as sharpened swords, and wide as targets let them be with their shade, to cover ye. Let the charged artillery drive till the dead air seems alive with the clash of clanging wheels and the tramp of horses heels. Let the fixed bayonet gleam with sharp desire to wet its bright point in English blood, looking keen as one for food. Stand ye calm and resolute like a forest, close and mute, with folded arms and looks which are weapons of an unvanquished war. If then the tyrants dare, let them ride among you there, slash and stab and maim and hew what they like, that, let them do. 7ixh folded arms and steady eyes and little fear and less surprise, look upon them as they stay, till their rage has died away. (oZibk 74a.

Then they will return with shame to the place from which they came, and the blood thus shed will speak in hot blishes on their cheek. And the bold true warriors who have hugged danger in wars, will turn to those who would be free, ashamed of such base company". Now those lines that I have read to you, are developing a very simple theme, are they not? Developing a theme that the vast assembly, to use the poets words "should declare with measured words that they are as God made them, free". And the poet envisages an attack upon them, and he speaks about "the charged artillery driving till the dead air seems alive" and "with fixed bayonets gleaming with sharp desires to wet its bright point in English blood". And then he called upon them "to stand calm and resolute, with folded arms and looks which are weapons of an unvanquished war". In other words, he is saying to them - Your must proclaim yourselves to be free, you are a vast multitude, you, if you are attacked with bayonets, with cannons, with arms, you must fold your arms and not take any counter measures. That is what he is, in f§ct, saying, is he not? Yes.

And he finished ap by indicating that by their very conduct he will win over - they will win over their attackers to their side. Not so? Yes. Nov/ you have read hundreds, I know I am underestimating, thousands of documents in this case and speeches, have you not? Yes. Over a long period of time? So$e months. Eighteen months, two years since you started working on thisE About two years. And you must every now and again, from time to time, come across the expression of similar sentiments by speakers or writers. You have often read, for instance - often read the expression "Our weapons are words, not bullets"? You have come across that in your research? I know the phrase. UZLu.?

Whether I can come across it in documents I have read, I couldn't tell you exactly - possibly. I know the phrase very well. B .t you also know, I think you will agree, that some of the speakers, some of the writers, whoever it may be, have advocated the same type ofconduct in the present struggle. That if they are attacked, they should not retaliate; that their weapons are words, not bullets. Have you not come across that from time to time? I can't reeall instances in the documents. I know that was the th.ory - the attitude, of course. Well, you have come across it in the speeches then? And the speeches have been referred to you in the form of documents, have they not? I have read these documents for two years, ^nd I can't think of an instance, but that does not mean to say that they are not there. I just cannot for the moment - I couldn't mention you a case where it has happened. On the assumption that this has been said over and over again, you will agree that basically that type of utterance is indistinguishable from what Percy Bysshe Shelley is saying in the poem, The Masque of anarchy? Yes. I take it that you are not suggesting that Mr. Shelley was using aesopian language, are you when he wrote this? No, I think he was writing poetry. He was "writing poetry to express an idea. Don't let us forget that? Yes. Well, I am glad that he is not an aesopist. By the way, when we come to that, I think during the course of your evidence, you referred to the well-known phrase purported to have been uttered by Karl Marx "The proletarians have nothing

to lose bu their chains, they have a world to win" - do you remember quoting that as coming from Marx? Yes. That was not a new concept, was it? In Marx' time? Yes? —- No. As a matter of fact I think he was a hit cf a plagia- rist? If I might read to you the last portion of the same poem "The Masque of Anarchy— "Rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to earth, like dew which in sleep hath fallen on you, ye are many, they are few". The same thought there, isn't there? Very much so. Shelley wasn't a communist, by the way, was he? I have not heard words and statements to that effect. I don't know. Actually, he lived many years before Karl Marx, 1792 to 1822, did he not? Yes. Professor, you are a family man? Yes. Large family? No. '".hat is your salary at the University? V/ithin a few pounds to £2,200. You were - this is not The first time that you have given evidence in trials of this nature, is it? First time. Were you not a witness in the trial of Kahn versus Time? The case was withdrawn before I appeared. Were you a witness in that case? I was asked to be a witness. Were you subpoenaed in that case? Yes. Lid you work on that case? Yes. Did you go through documents in that case? Yes. Did you give an opinion in that case and a report in that caseWhos? e sidYese. wer e you? The Defence called me as a witness. Whose side was that? In the case? Yes? The case of Time Incorporated. Kahn was the man who was alleged to be the communist?

He was the plaintiff? Yes. -tr.

Were you paid for that job? Ultimately, yes. Are you getting paid for this job? Don't know. You don't know? Officially I received no statement at all on that point. Will you render an acoount in due course? Even that point has not been raised. Will you render an account in due course? You don't have to ask somebody else whether you are allowed to render an account? I might. Well, what is it that would clear any uncertainty or doubt in your mind? Merely thefact that I had not considered that point, really. You haven't considered it? No. I am in thepay of the University. I am on leave from the University and... Andyou spent two years on this case, off and on? Yes, off and on. Studied thousands of documents? Make it hundreds. And you haven't ever considered the question as to whether you will render an account or get paid? No. You mentioned something about the Broederbond, - you were on the point of saying something and then you indicated that you had used the wrong...? No, I was not on the point of saying something about the Broederbond. I confused the word with the Ossewa Brandwag. With the Nationalist Party? No, the Ossewa Brandwag„ The Ossewa Brandwag, to the best of my knowledge, is now in the Nationalist Party. Tell me, what is the Broeder- bond? You are asking me something about which I have very little information. It is a society, I suppose, or a group of people... May I interject? Secret society? I am not even sure of that, because I actually know of people who belong to it, who make no secrecy of belonging to it, But how they operate, I don't know. You don't even know whether it is a secret society? No, I have heard the accusation made. I don't know if it is. You haven't even read the attacks on the Broederbond? In the press, yes. Attacks by members of the Nationalist Government? As well as others? I can't recall any such attack at the moment by - a particular attack. There may be. And are you really seriously going on record as saying that you have no idea whether it is a secret society or not? I could find statements - I know very little about the Broederbond, frankly. I could find statements where members of the Broederbond have denied that they are a secret society. I have statements where they have been accused of being a secret society. By? I wish I knew that. So do I? I could find such statements. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. BY MR. COAKER : My learned leader, Mr. Rosenberg, has already expressed my attitude towards questioning this witness. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. SLOVO : Professor, I don't propose embarking upon an examina- tion of your knowledge of Marxist theory, but I just wish to put one or two matters arising out of the evidence you gave in chief, and the one thing that puzzles me - have you got a copy of your evidence? No. Would you have a look at page 4524? I would just like to read to you the last paragraph appearing on that page. 'What is meant by dialectical meterialism?' and your answer is - 'Dialectical materialism is a philosophy which believes that the law which governs the universe is a so-called dialectic law, that is a law of opposites, that everything that vr.

' happens, happens through its opposite, and then a synthesis takes place. It "believes that the "basis of things is matter - matter inmotion and that this matter which moves everything is worked through its opposites'. If we could just stop there for a mement. What puzzles me, as I say I don't intend enquiring about your knowledge of dialectical materialism, hut what puzzles me is what this particular statement means, and before I ask you what it means, I would like to ask you whether this statement reflects what you said? It reflects basically what I said, yes. Is it a correct recording of what you said, as far as you can see? Yes. Does it in your estimation make sense as it stands? If I can read the meaning of the words into the words that I want to, with a philosophical condition, yes. In terms of ordinary grammatical English, do you maintain that this that I have just read, make sense? Yes. Now could you just explain to me, what you mean by the statement 'that matter in motion moves everything'? It is a statement - it is almost a quotation. It is the older philosophical position adopted by Marx later on that the basic nature of things, of everything that is, of Being, with a capital 'B', is a particular aspect ofmatter, matter in motion and that everything that happens, happens as an outcome or result of forms of motion of matter. In other words, what the statement means, as I read it, and you must pardon my ignorance of this particular subject, is that matter in motion, moves matter. Is that what I am to understand by that sentence? That matter in motion moves matter in motion. Is that what you said? Yes. And you consider that is not a non-sensical philoso- phical proposition? Very prominent philosophers have taken up that... r x 9 0 •

You will agree, and I think you did in some form suggest it in evidence, that in terms of communist theory, there is only one correct policy in relation to every specific - specific set of conditions. In other words, if I might put it to you differently so that there is no possibility of error, what they, the communists, regard as their superior approach they claim enables them to correctly decide the tactics to be adopted in any given situation. Is that

your experience with communists? They claim as their right to interpret the situtation on their philosophy that that would then be the correct - the next step in the develop- ment in that situation. When they put forward their policy, like any other political group, homogeneous political group, I take it they claim that policy to be the correct one for that given set of conditions? For a given situation. The only correct thing. Nothing peculiar about commu- nists in this regard. When the Nationalist Party takes a decision, they also claim that that is the correct tactic, the correct policy in relation to a given set of conditions? You mean the Nationalist Party... Or any political group, claim that what they consider to be correct policy..? No, I think you are up against a Marxist problem there, which has worried Marxist scholars a lot. That is the old philosophical problem of error. Marx believed that the universe developed according to the dialectic synthesis, and then he had found it difficult to justify what one would call wrong policies. But he believed that the communist teachings, communist doctrine, did contain the right next step because it worked on the dialectic. So the simple answer, to a simple question, is that communists, in terms of your understanding of them, do claim that when they put forward a policy, it is the correct policy for the given set of conditions? Yes, or they hope •sr.

that it is the correct policy... Or they claim that it is the correct policy? Yes. And they also claim that it is the only correct policy, do they not, for the given set of conditions? Yes. Now, it is not my purpose, at this stage, to test the proposition at all, hut you did say, at some stage in your evidence, you might recall it, that according to communist theory, change can only he brought about by some form of violent revolution. I think you put it in terms of the teachings of the masters? Yes.

And at a later stage, you did indicate when you were asked the question, that at times, under certain conditions, communists have preached non-violence? I recall that. I want you to assume for the moment, for the purpose •f giving an opinion on what I am going to put to you, that a hundred documents have been placed before you, relating to the period 1952 to 1956. Half of which - that is reltaing to the period of events in South Africa - half of which speak of attaining political ends by relying on support from outside, and the other half specifically rejecting such assistance. That is the first category. The second category - a hundred speakers, relating to the same period, and to conditions in

South Africa? half of which speak of attaining political ends by violence and the other half specifically stating that the aim is to bring about the change by peaceful and non-violent means. And the last category : A hundred speeches relating to the same period and to South Africa, half of which put forward by non-Europeans acting against the White man, and rejecting any form of co-operation with him, and the other half specifically stating that the political changes must be brought about by co-operation with the White man, and in furtherance of racial co-operation and harmony. Now if those documents and speeches that I have described, were placed -S3-. before you for the period 1952 to 1956 in South Africa, and in relation to these categories, which of these would you gay are the communist doctrines? The first p«int I will mak< is that one test is not sufficient. Communist diplomats - strategists have several times made the position that you have got to adapt your strategy to the situation and it spite of their belief in the dialectic, even communists do not speak with the same mouth always, with the same opinions, so that all those documents could be communistic, some need not bt and I would require other information on them. Let me put it to you a bit more simply. I am standing on a street corner in Sloff Street making a public speech, and I say that the change which I want "brought about must be brought about by a violent, bloody revolution. On the same day, at the same time, during this period 1952 to 1956, but just around the corner, another man stands up and says 'I want a change brought about. I believe that the only way we can bring about this change is by constitutional means'. Do I understand jiou to say that they might both, on that same day, be putting forward communist doctrine? Definitely, they might be. In other words, heads you win and tails I lose? Is that your position? No, no. Much more scientifichan that. i I would ask, before I accused a man like that, I would get further information, andon the further coherence of the information, I might decide that both are communists or that neither are communists. I would not make a judgment on one element like that.

CASE REMANDED UNTIL 30th JULY, 1957. Collection: 1956 Treason Trial Collection number: AD1812

PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand Location:- Johannesburg ©2011

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.