. NMT05-T1174
Volume VI · Page 1174
| facts which we submit are impossible in the light
of the documents in the record written by the defendants themselves. I do not
propose to discuss them now, but I do wish to say a very few words with respect
to the legal arguments as to whether the acts charged as crimes are cognizable
under [Control Council] Law No. 10. The defense urges that Law No. 10, like the Charter as applied by the IMT, is limited to crimes occurring after 1 September 1939. This question I have discussed in our opening statement, and at this time I merely want to point out the difficulties defense counsel have experienced in seeking protection for their clients even under the IMT decision. In an effort to push the Ignaz Petschek transaction before 1 September 1939, Dr. Nath has told us that everything of importance happened before that date. This overlooks the simple fact, among others, that the divestment of title be placed after that date. His argument also seems strange when contrasted with the attempted defense of coercion in connection with the Ignaz Petschek transaction. When the defendants are pleading coercion they refer to an alleged order issued by the government in December 1939; and in that phase of the case one would certainly gather that something new and substantial had indeed been added after 1 September 1939. The defense has also argued that persecutions on racial, religious, and political grounds must be physical acts directed against the person of a member of the persecuted group analogous to murder, torture, rape, etc. This argument has been made before and has been rejected by the IMT. For example, in its enumerations of the crimes of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party the IMT stated that that group had "played its part in the persecution of the Jews. It was involved in the economic and political discrimination against the Jews which was put into effect shortly after the Nazis came into power."¹ Likewise in its enumeration of the criminal activities of Seyss-Inquart, the IMT stated that "One of Seyss-Inquart's first steps as Reich Commissioner of the Netherlands was to put into effect a series of laws imposing economic discriminations against the Jews."² Likewise as to the crimes of Walther Funk, the IMT stated that he "had participated in the early Nazi program of economic discrimination against the Jews."³ In the enumeration of the crimes of Wilhelm Frick the IMT stated that he "drafted, signed. |
¹ Trial of the Major War Criminal, op. cit., volume I, Page 259.
² Ibid, p. 329.
³ Ibid, p. 305
