 |
enormous sums spent by the Sales Combine Bayer in aid of charitable
and social institutions. It will become evident that these so-called political
donations cannot be regarded by any means as a support of the Party or of the
Nazi regime, and that in no case whatsoever have payments been made in support
of seditious propaganda or agitation abroad.
In General Taylor's words,
the defendant is supposed to have participated in "unleashing a violent and
malicious propaganda campaign which would have done credit even to Goebbels."
What is the truth of this matter?
It is only natural that the IG had an
excellent economic intelligence service, and it is equally natural that it
carried on extensive economic propaganda. Particularly was Bayer, whose
pharmaceuticals were bought all over the world, very active in the field of
commercial propaganda. From 1934 onward, and even more so since 1937, export
sales were greatly handicapped on account of boycott measures against German
goods. Bayer, therefore, was forced to further increase the advertising of its
products and, pointing to certain scientific achievements, emphasized the
German character of those products. This was in no way homage to a Nazi regime
or a political system, but merely a matter of advertising I.G. Farben products,
which happened to be of German origin.
Viewed in this light, the
evidence offered by the defense must be regarded from an angle differing from
that of the prosecution. Moreover, I propose to prove through documents and
witness’ examinations that in no way has any Nazi propaganda been made in
foreign countries. It is interesting to note in this respect that the
prosecution establishes as a very serious incrimination the fact that a Bayer
agency supplied the Brazilian radio, on the latter's express wish, with some
material for anti-Communist propaganda. After the result of the London
Conference, it will suffice to underline this without adding another word.
The prosecution's assertion that the Bayer organization had made
political propaganda abroad by granting special contributions, or by sending
out Nazi propaganda material, is not correct. I propose to prove that although
the Ministry of Propaganda and the propaganda departments of the Gauleitung
demanded this of Bayer, the defendant Mann and his associates managed to reject
by far the greater part of these demands.
The prosecution's assertion
in the opening statement that Bayer had "carefully adapted their sales and
advertising program to National Socialistic ideas" has not been proved by the
evidence produced by the prosecution. On the contrary, I shall prove that the
instructions from the Ministry of Propaganda were not |
333 |
. 
