Вы правы, я немного передернул с определением, но не принципиально. вот цитата:
`A. I do not know this declaration in detail, but it is clear that the League of Nations, like everyone else, was
against an aggressive war, and at that time Germany was a member of the League.
Q. Germany was a member, and the preamble of the declaration was:
[Page 218]
"Being convinced that a war of aggression would never serve as a means of settling international
disputes, and is in consequence an international crime ... "
Were you familiar with that when you ...
A. Not in detail, no.
Q. It was rather an important matter to be familiar with if you were going to advise Hitler, who was then
Chancellor, on foreign policy, was it not?
A. This declaration was certainly important, and corresponded exactly with my attitude at that time. But
subsequent events have proved that the League of Nations was not in a position to save Germany from chaos.
Q. Did you continue to hold that as your own view.
A. I did not understand the question.
Q. Did you continue to hold the expression of opinion I have quoted to you from the preamble as your own view?
A. That was as such my fundamental attitude, but, on the other hand, I was of the opinion that Germany should
be given help in some way.
Q. So I gathered. Now, apart from that, if you were not familiar in detail with that resolution, were you familiar in
detail with the Briand-Kellogg Pact?
A. Yes, I was familiar with it.
Q. Did you agree with the view expressed in the preamble and in the pact that there should be a renunciation of
war as an instrument of national policy?
A. Yes. `
Уточниение: отвечает Риббентроп, впрочем Вы и сами поймете:)