. NMT06-T0150
Volume VI · Page 150
| some European states. I shall endeavor to
trace this development up to the latest times and to explain not only its
theoretical regulations, but also its practical consequences. While requesting
the Tribunal to join me in remembering the described historical background when
looking at the charges against the accused industrialists, I shall then
consider the so-called slave-labor program in detail. By the judgment of the
International Military Tribunal this program has been declared criminal in its
entirety. Such a comprehensive statement may have been sufficient as long as
the question of over-all responsibility for this program was under discussion.
But it is not sufficient where a criminal participation in this program has to
be proved. For the program, as described by the prosecution, extends over many
years and many countries. It comprises totally different functions — the
procurement of workers, their distribution, their employment, and their
treatment. If it can be proved that the defendants participated only in such
sections of the program which are not criminal, or that they only knew of such
sections, then no individual guilt is established and there is no possibility
of punishment. In taking evidence, therefore, we have to investigate the
individual sections of the program and to establish the defendants'
participation in them. In this process it will become evident that the
prosecution bases its arguments in a decisive question on wrong figures.
According to the opening statement of the Chief Prosecutor, of the 5 million foreign workers, only 200,000 went to Germany voluntarily. The remainder, that is 4.8 millions, was — I quote from the statement — "corralled in man hunts in which houses were burned dawn, churches and theaters were searched, children were shot, and families were torn apart by the SS and other recruiters." These 4.8 million workers, who were displaced by criminal means, form the basis of the indictment. And this basis is quite obviously and to an enormous extent wrong. In proof of this I shall refer to the same chief witness who has been used by the prosecution, namely, Sauckel. The same applies to the question of the time when forcible drafting of workers started to any extent worth mentioning. Sauckel, in the affidavit submitted by the prosecution, declares this time to coincide approximately with the fall of Stalingrad, i.e., in January 1943 (NI-1098, Pros. Ex. 71.) Kehrl, in the minutes of the Central Planning Board of 1 March 1944, which have also been submitted by the Prosecution, speaks of an even later time, namely, of June 1943. (R-124, Pros. Ex. 81.) The high number of voluntary workers, as well as the time when coercive measures began, will play an important part in |
