. NMT06-T0114
Volume VI · Page 114
| This is, I believe the most illuminating
passage in the entire documentation of this case. It reflects a basic
misconception which is entirely too prevalent even outside of Germany and
which, unless set straight, leaves scant room for hope of Germany's
reconstruction. It reflects the obstinate belief that the only crimes of the
Third Reich were those of the Nazi Party and that, indeed, the only crime was
to be a Nazi. Passages such as this bring home to one that this case is not a
mere rattling of dead bones. The contrast that the author of this passage appears to think he has drawn between Thyssen and, we must assume, Flick, might be amusing if it were not for the appalling state of mind which it reflects. The prosecution holds no brief for Fritz Thyssen; Hitler had much to thank him for. We can only guess at the true reasons which brought about the break between Thyssen and the Nazis but, however good or bad those reasons may have been, Thyssen broke and broke decisively. He left Germany the day of the attack on Poland, and cast his vote, as a member of the Reichstag, against the declaration of war. The contrast between Thyssen's behavior and that of Flick is indeed sharp, but it is hardly the contrast which Kaletsch seeks to draw. As Hitler's power grew, Flick drew ever closer to the political masters of the Third Reich. He profited by the ideology of the Nazis and the conquests of the Wehrmacht. He made friends with the most shudderingly wicked figure of modern times. He wanted to be in on the kill. If Hitler had achieved victory, Flick would not be an unhappy, troubled man, and all that he regrets today is that he was not endowed politically with the same foresight and shrewdness which he manifested in business; he guessed wrong. All this appears to have escaped the author in the passage quoted above. We pointed out, at the outset of this statement, that the law of nations is concerned with conduct and not with status. But leadership does carry with it responsibility, and a man's position and education do affect the measure of his guilt. We are not dealing in this case with murderous fanatics to whom one may pay the single compliment of sincerity. We are dealing with men so bent on the attainment of power and wealth that all else took second place. I do not know whether or not Flick and his associates hated the Jews; it is quite possible that he never gave the matter much thought until it became a question of practical importance, and not their inner feelings and sentiments. The story of this case is, in the last analysis, a story of betrayal. The defendants were men of wealth; many mines and factories were their private property. They will certainly tell you |
