 |
the assumption that peace could be maintained. But when this
unfortunate war broke out, it was precisely my client — as the witness Dr.
Kurt Krueger testified, and as further witnesses will prove — who did not
want to believe in its outbreak. Dr. Ilgner's economic planning and work was
based upon peace; any war was bound to destroy his life work.
Once this
war had become a fact, however, and connections with the countries overseas
were disrupted, my client turned to the intensification of economic relations
that existed with the southeast European countries, thus reviving an old idea
dating back to the year 1932. We have heard here of the soy bean scheme in
Rumania and Bulgaria, and the Danube reed scheme was mentioned as well. The
very attitude that my client took toward the southeast European countries,
during the war, too, is characteristic of his attitude toward Germany's
economic relations with the rest of the world.
Concerning this, I shall
present to the Tribunal, in addition to other evidence, the report on an
investigation made by an English institute, which made Germany's economic
policies in southeast Europe the subject of a critical analysis, and in so
doing came to an appreciative judgment.
The prosecution finally
believes that it can charge Dr. Ilgner with having made propaganda abroad for
the National Socialist State, and refers in this connection to the so-called
"Wirtschaftsfuehrer Kreis," of which my client was a member, and which was
conspicuous by its short duration.
Permit me to first submit that there
is no law which might serve the Court as a basis for its findings, according to
which any support abroad of one's country and government, even propagandist
activity, is regarded as a punishable act. The prosecution would have to
produce evidence — not merely make an assertion — that this alleged
propaganda had aimed at unleashing a war.
However, the prosecution has
not even tried to prove this causality.
For the rest, any propaganda
activity on the part of my client, such as the prosecution alleges, is out of
the question. We know that in 1933, a vigorous campaign was carried on abroad,
and in particular, in the United States, against German export goods and IG
products. We are somewhat surprised to note that the prosecution thinks it can
base a charge on the fact that this boycott propaganda was countered by the
firms involved. The American propaganda expert, Ivy Lee, was commissioned by
the IG and asked for advice on how this serious obstruction of business could
be countered. I shall prove that this activity of the |
325 |
. 
