. NMT05-T1173
Volume VI · Page 1173
| [in-…] teresting and novel propositions; by the time we have
left him we have learned that total war is an Anglo-Saxon concept, that
deporting civilians from occupied territories against their will and forcing
them to work for Germany is not a crime at all, and that the whole legal basis
of the Hague Convention and, in consequence, of this trial, rests upon an
obsolete liberal, bourgeois ideology. Considerably relieved, we proceed on down the path, encouraged by Dr. Pelckmann and Dr. Nath, from whom we learn that the defendants, since they are private businessmen, are privileged and immune to the duties and responsibilities which international law lays upon us humble military men or civil servants. When we reach Dr. Flaechsner's tree, we are momentarily assailed by doubts again when we hear that the prosecution, in count three of the indictment, has quite overlooked the fact that Flick no longer acted as a private businessman, but was under the orders of the delegate of the Four Year Plan. But this hesitation is only temporary, as we now learn on unimpeachable authority that the defendants were really attorneys for the Petscheks. By the time we reach Dr. Siemer's tree, we are beginning to feel a little bit ashamed that we ever had any doubts at all about the safety of this path. Here we learn that the fact that these and other leading German industrialists are undergoing trial is a principal obstacle to the reconstruction of Germany. And when we finally reach the very end of the garden path we find Dr. Dix, accompanied by Medizinalrat Kersten. The combination of the spell woven by Dr. Dix and the message administered by Dr. Kersten is entirely too much for us, and it is only some hours later that we manage to shake ourselves out of the trance and realize what actually happened to us on the garden path. As is usually the case under such circumstances, most of the real damage was done behind the first tree, where we met Dr. Kranzbuehler even though our experiences at the end of the path with Dr. Dix and Dr. Kersten were perhaps more exotic. And accordingly Dr. Kranzbuehler's argument will receive our principal attention, after a few very brief words on other matters. I cannot see that any useful purpose will be served by further discussion of the question of fear and coercion, on which Dr. Dix has just laid great emphasis. We have expressed our view in the prosecution's closing statement that the record furnishes no basis for such a plea, and we have stated our views on the applicable law. As to the charges under count three, closing statements of defense counsel have offered numerous interpretations of the |
