. NMT06-T0147
Volume VI · Page 147
| the use of this production is extremely
manifold. It is a fact that the local industries of those areas for which
Steinbrinck was plenipotentiary for Coal, were more adequately supplied with
coal than the industries in some parts of Germany. This does not alone apply to
the coal supplies for the industry but also includes the supplies for the
civilian population. Where Steinbrinck was in charge the distribution of the
coal industry was such that coal was also exported to the other western areas,
e.g., from Holland to northern France, from Belgium to Luxembourg and partly
also to Germany. This could not be challenged. The coal regions with their
mining industries have always exported coal. In view of the interwoven
commercial relations between neighboring countries it is unavoidable — in
normal times even imperative — that products are exchanged. It is
impossible to take the point of view that due to the stoppage of imports the
export of coal should have been discontinued; this would mean to disregard the
fact that the mutual economic interrelationship and dependence of the various
areas on each other absolutely required such an exchange. At any rate these
economic relationships were so complex that to export part of the production
from the occupied country into another could not possibly be considered an act
of plundering. It is impossible to define the concept of "plundering" in such
an unequivocal fashion — at least concerning the charge under
consideration — as to be able to use it as basis for a penal sentence.
The prosecution has attempted in most detailed statements of a legal factual nature to create a legal basis for count three of its indictment. The prosecution wishes the activity of the defendant, which it has circumscribed by the word "Aryanization", to be considered as a crime against humanity in the sense of the Control Council Law. For this purpose the prosecution has tried to eliminate the restrictions of the legal concept "crime against humanity" as undertaken by the IMT, by taking the point of view that the case under discussion could not be decided on the same legal basis which served the IMT for its decisions. Within the bounds of this brief representation it is impossible to discuss the very detailed statements of the prosecution; this must be postponed to a later date. This much however can he said, that the very wording of the Control Council Law contradicts the opinion of the prosecution. The Control Council Law as well as the Statute of the IMT rest on the same basis, i.e., the London Agreement which is explicitly designated as an inseparable part of the Control Council Law. The IMT Statute is part of the London Agreement and has been authentically interpreted by the IMT to the effect that crimes against humanity in the sense of the London Agreement cannot be considered before 1 September 1939. It would be inexpedient at the present moment to enter into a discussion of |
955487 — 52 — 12
