 |
| to collect evidence, a fine confusion of names has crept into the
charges. At the court session of 2 September 1947, it was alleged that Carl
Duisberg informed the Reich Association of German Industry that "he was
prepared to contribute to the Adolf Hitler Fund," while emphasizing his
outspokenly approving attitude. Dr. Curt Duisberg gives us the following
correction to this: |
| |
"A confusion of names is involved
here. It was not the chairman of the Aufsichtsrat, Geheimrat Dr. Carl Duisberg,
but I myself, in my capacity as head of the Central Committee
[Zentralauschussbuero] Office, who was present at the conference with the Trade
Association of the Chemical Industry, and who prepared the memorandum of 16
June 1933." |
Surely any of the defendants could have told the prosecution this if
they had been asked for it.
The prosecution has made many claims about
Gattineau in its opening statement. He is supposed to have been the economic
adviser of Roehm, a leading political representative of Farben who headed the
WIPO [Political Economic Policy Department] for 6 years. But they have not
presented any proof of what Gattineau actually did.
Undoubtedly the
prosecution has felt it was necessary to establish a connecting link between
1932 and 1939. Therefore, some other meaning than was actually the case had to
be assigned to the WIPO, the National Advertising Council [Werberat], etc. To
be sure, proof is still lacking. The prosecution connected the establishment of
the WIPO with the coming to power of the Party. That this is obviously wrong
was already shown in the presentation of evidence by the prosecution.
The importance of the activity of WIPO (which was an office used for
intermediary purposes and for forwarding correspondence, as was shown by the
interrogation and cross-examination of Krueger), was inflated artfully to that
of a highly important and political instrument. Similar efforts were made by
the prosecution in regard to the Wirtschaftsfuehrerkreis and the Werberat der
Deutschen Wirtschaft [National Advertising Council of the German Economy]. The
prosecution also has not proven and has offered no valid evidence in the
Austrian affair and in regard to DAG [Dynamit Aktiengessellschaft] Pressburg
[Bratislava]. In the "Austrian question," for instance, it will be seen that it
was a matter of continuing negotiations with Skoda-Wetzler, begun long before
the Anschluss; and for the rest, that it was a matter of internal
reorganization of DAG firms without any pressure of any kind from Farben.
Furthermore, the prosecution itself did not claim in its presen-
[…tation] |
309 |
. 
