 |
The prosecution accuses Dr. ter Meer under all counts except count
four. Concerning count five, the charge of participating in a conspiracy to
commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, I refer to the motion submitted
yesterday. This was the motion submitted by Dr. von Metzler, and for the
reasons stated in that motion, I ask for a verdict of "not guilty" for my
client with respect to count five. Regarding count one, I consider the charge
of the prosecution, even on legal grounds, to be insufficient. Therefore, in
the above mentioned motion, submitted yesterday, I requested for my client a
verdict of "not guilty," which I repeat now.
Nevertheless, I wish to
make clear, as a precaution, the following: My client categorically denies
having known anything at all about Hitler's and his [Hitler's] close
confidants’ war plans, as set forth in the IMT judgment. With the greatest
emphasis, he rejects the assumption that he participated in, approved of, and
knowingly supported those plans. His collaboration in the development and
growth of Farben, especially in the field of synthetic rubber, helped to
increase the economic power, and hence necessarily, also the military
potential. However, this in itself is not subject to punishment according to
the findings of the IMT judgment. I shall offer proof that Dr. ter Meer, be it
as head of TEA, of Sparte II, or at any other stage of his business career, was
at all times guided in his activities by considerations of a purely economic
character only. Pleasure, not in destroying, but in creating, was always the
mainspring of his actions.
My client was not free to choose when making
his technical and economic plans. In this connection it appears necessary to
briefly mention one general question, the one concerning the relations between
the state and the economy as they developed in Germany prior to the end of the
war. The prosecution tried to picture the situation as if Farben, acting
through its Vorstand members who now stand accused here, had made common cause
with Hitler as his coequal and copowerful partner. This assumption rests on a
complete misconception of the true conditions which prevailed in Germany. I
therefore deem it incumbent on the defense to explain that, in Germany, the
state played the predominant part in its relations with industry, and that it
increased its influence from year to year. I shall prove that this influence
increased in the period following Hitler's accession to power in 1933 to such
an extent that soon one could no longer describe it as a guided, but merely as
a dictated, economy. In view of Hitler's cunningly contrived dictatorial
system, industry could not escape this steadily growing tutelage by the state
and its organs, to which was added that the NSDAP and all of its agencies. To
do this was impossible, even for a firm the size and importance of I.G. Farben.
|
259 |
. 
