. NMT05-T1118
Volume VI · Page 1118
| this large scope. This first trial of industrialists is not an attack
on Dr. Flick and his assistants, but an attack on the entire German economy, on
German capitalism and its industrialists. In my opening statement of 18 July 1948,* I pointed out this fact and the peculiarity of this attempt of the prosecution. |
|
| * * * * * * * * * * | |
| Still lacking are the two last firms of the department of Weiss,
namely, the two railroad car factories in Silesia and Saxony. Regarding these
two plants, both the prosecution and myself have in common that we can produce
little evidence. The representative sent by Dr. Kranzbuehler and myself into
the Russian Zone, has, as the Court will recall, brought back little, if any,
usable data. This failure must be attributed to the conception about democratic
freedom prevailing in that zone. The American prosecution, too, could obviously
not get any documents from the allied Russian friend of the United States of
America, apart from data of a general nature which had already been submitted
in the IMT trial by the Soviet Union, and of which the defendants had no
knowledge. The prosecution has raised against both railroad car factories three common charges — and beyond this brought up other argumentation against Weiss with regard to the Linke-Hofmann Works which it thinks is of an incriminating character. Apart from the material with regard to this argumentation the following legal questions — in default of evidence — are concerned: First, both firms are said to have employed, contrary to the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war. Second, both firms are said to have, contrary to law, employed concentration camp inmates. Third, foreigners, prisoners of war, and concentration camp inmates are said to have been ill-treated. Fourth, Weiss is said to have taken steps in Berlin in order to obtain prisoners of war for the Linke-Hofmann Werke though he always asserts that it was an affair of the plant with which he had nothing to do. Item one.— The allegation that prisoners of war had been employed in the railroad car factory is correct. How this fact is said to constitute a violation of the rules of the Geneva Convention — that, in spite of all efforts, I could not understand. The related rule of the Geneva Convention is Article 31, paragraph 1, which says as follows, and I quote: |
|
"Labor furnished by prisoners of war shall have no direct relation with war operations. It is especially prohibited to use prisoners for manufacturing and transporting arms or muni- […tions] |
* Reproduced in section III F.
