 |
may complete your statement, and then we will take the recess at the
conclusion of your presentation.
DR. SIEMERS: With reference to count
three of the indictment (foreign workers, prisoners of war, and concentration
camp prisoners), I defended (in the Flick trial) the Ruhr industry —
particularly the mining industry — and many other firms against these
charges. In this trial I will be brief, inasmuch as Dr. von Schnitzler did not
handle questions of plant operation and particularly not details of labor
allocation. Consequently the defense of my client will be limited to the
charges of the prosecution that, as a member of the Vorstand as well as a
member of various organizations such as the Reich Group Industry, he bears
coresponsibility.
The prosecution states, "It is not proper to claim
the privileges of authority without accepting responsibility," thereby
overlooking the distinction which must be drawn between the responsibility of
the Vorstand under the civil law, namely, the corporation law, on the one hand,
and responsibility under criminal law on the other hand. Criminal law requires
proof of guilt to establish responsibility, thereby requiring positive
knowledge of certain facts. The prosecution itself admits that many of the
defendants were not aware of those details but states, however, that they were
able and obligated to obtain knowledge of those details, and should have done
so, and should have conducted investigations for that purpose.
Apart
from the fact that in the case of so large a Konzern it is utterly impossible
to conduct investigations continuously, it does not constitute a part of the
duties of every member of the Vorstand within the organization of such a large
Konzern and such a large Vorstand, as the proceedings will prove, to concern
himself with questions of plant operation, thereby neglecting his own sphere of
work.
The prosecution has also recognized this fact and is endeavoring
to overcome it with the aid of the Control Council Law, by referring to Article
II, 2 (e) and (f) of the Control Council Law No. 10, which, in addition to the
usual forms of criminal participation, has created two new forms of
participation; namely, the fact of a person holding a high position in industry
or economy, and the fact of mere membership in an organization connected with
the commission of a war crime - whereby, surprisingly enough, IG apparently is
considered as an organization or association of that kind.
In the
course of this trial, it may be proved that this provision, particularly its
interpretation as attempted by the prosecution, is contrary to the judgment of
the International Military Tri- […bunal] |
232 |
. 
