 |
German industry in the second industrial case, against the largest
German economic Konzern, the IG, within the scope of my defense of Dr. Georg
von Schnitzler. I have been of the opinion that these industrial cases were not
directed against the individual defendants but, fundamentally, against the
whole of German economy. In the last few days in the Krupp case, General Taylor
contradicted my opinion and emphasized that the defendants would be held
responsible purely personally, and not as symbols or representatives of the
entire industry. I stand nevertheless by my assertion, which demonstrates the
danger to the whole of the German economy, simply because the main counts of
the indictment, and the many assertions of the prosecution, show this quite
unequivocally, i.e., the fight against the entire economy and against German
capitalism as a whole. The realization of this tendency is no superfluous
theoretical issue; an attack against the economy does not only affect
capitalism and the major industrialists, but it similarly affects thousands of
medium and minor industrialists, thousands of employees, foremen, and workers.
The question which Labour Member Rhys Davies put in the House of
Commons on 23 May 1947 is, therefore, not an accident, but a necessary
consequence. He asked his government whether plant leaders, foremen, engineers
and skilled workers — who, according to the indictment, helped the
National Socialist war machine just as much as did the industrialists —
would also be brought to trial, since the American authorities had brought
German industrialists to trial for the same reasons.
The Labour
Member's question in itself confirms the correctness of my opinion. The same
conclusion can, however, be drawn from the prosecution's own statement which
repeatedly mentions the alliance of the entire industry with Hitler and
militarism and which does not limit this alliance to certain defendants, but
has mentioned innumerable other German Konzerns and firms which were not
indicted. Such is the case with the statement of the prosecution on count one,
i.e., wars of aggression; this is shown even more clearly in count two, the
so-called plunder and spoliation; and count three, so-called slave labor. Here
again, the fact emerges that innumerable Germans are being attacked, through
the type of accusation alone, even though the prosecution need not say so in so
many words.
Spoliation, as seen by the prosecution, does not consist
only of plundering as prohibited by Article 47 of the Hague Convention, i.e.,
removal of objects; but also of exploitation of the economic strength of the
occupied territory, and even the operation of a factory in the occupied
territory in the interest, entirely |
223 |
. 
