. NMT06-T0113
Volume VI · Page 113
| Under these limitations, in order to render
membership criminal, two things, in addition to membership, must be shown:
1. That the individual in question became or remained a member of the organization after 1 September, 1939, and 2. That the individual in question either (a) became or remained a member with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article VI of the London Agreement, or (b) was personally implicated as a member of the organization in the commission of such crimes. The prosecution believes that, once it has established that a defendant was a member of one or more of the criminal organizations, it is incumbent upon the defendant to come forward with evidence that he neither knew of the criminal activities of the organization, nor participated in their commission, or that he ceased to be a member prior to 1 September 1939. We believe that any questions concerning the burden of proof will be entirely academic in this case. Steinbrinck was not a lowly laborer in the vineyard. He held high rank, and consorted constantly with Himmler and Himmler's lieutenants. He is a man of ability and discernment and had more than ample opportunity to discern. The charge of membership in the SS, particularly when it involves a man of this calibre, is a very serious one. The prosecution believes that there are absolutely no circumstances to be considered in mitigation. |
| CONCLUSION |
| The prosecution has in its possession a document, written chiefly by the defendant Kaletsch, which rehearses the life of Friedrich Flick and the history of the Flick Konzern. The authors of this document have been at great pains to prove that Flick and most other leading German industrialists were not Nazis and did not agree with the ideology of Hitler. They appear much troubled by the circumstances, now widely known, that Fritz Thyssen — the best known German industrialist of recent times — was an early and ardent supporter of Hitler. An interesting passage in this document states — |
"The example of Fritz Thyssen does not carry much weight. Thyssen was not a person like his father, August Thyssen, who built up the big enterprise. Fritz Thyssen, after all, was a fundamentally honest character, but subject in his ideas and actions to moods and changes. It is not clear what induced Fritz Thyssen to support the ideas of national socialism and the Nazi Party to such a great extent. He might, perhaps, have had similar reasons as other persons who, due to the lack of their own ability, meant to conquer or reconquer by means of national socialism a lost economic position * * *." |
