|
V. COMPULSION IN HITLER'S THIRD REICH AND THE DEFENSE OF "WINDOW
DRESSING" |
|
A. Introduction |
|
The defense argued extensively, and introduced large amounts of
evidence in support of their claim, that regulations were so stringent and far
reaching under Hitler's dictatorship that private individuals, including
leading industrialists, could not refuse their cooperation without fear of
immediate penalty, including confinement and possibly even death. The defense
further claimed that most of the acts charged as criminal in the indictment
were committed under this compulsion and hence were not the voluntary acts of
the defendants.
Closely related to this argument, if not a part
thereof, was the claim that many statements made in contemporaneous documents
by the defendants and their associates were formulated for "window dressing"
purposes, and that some of the defendants engaged in the practice of "howling
with the wolves" in order to avoid penalties or in order to obtain legitimate
ends which they otherwise could not have accomplished under the Nazi regime.
Since these defenses were urged in connection with each of the five
counts of the indictment, some of the evidence concerning these matters is
reproduced in this preliminary section with a view to presenting at an early
point a general defense to numerous prosecution exhibits and thus avoiding
needless repetition later on. The first selections from the evidence are
extracts from the testimony of three defense witnesses and the defendant Ambros
concerning compulsion (subsec. B). The word "window dressing" first made its
appearance in the courtroom because the secretary of the Commercial Committee
of Farben's Vorstand, Dr. Frank-Fahle, had used the word in an affidavit
(NI-5169, Pros. Ex. 360) discussing the minutes of the meetings of the
Commercial Committee.
When this affiant was called for
cross-examination by the defense, the defense elicited considerable further
testimony concerning "window dressing" as a policy, and thereafter the term was
used again and again in the trial. Accordingly, extracts from the testimony of
Frank-Fahle and his affidavit are reproduced below (subsec. C 1 b). This is
followed by brief extracts from the testimony |
414 |