 |
[con…] nection. I take it that Mr. Sprecher had the intention,
although he did not show us in any way in what connection this took place, of
wanting to characterize the attitude of the defendants, or some of the
defendants. Could you tell us, for the purpose of clarification, at which
occasion and in what connection this remark was made?
MR. SPRECHER: Mr.
President, I scarcely feel that it is necessary to the Tribunal that defense
counsel indicate what they think my purpose was in this connection. If it is
part of a question, they can ask the fact.
PRESIDING JUDGE SHAKE: As
the Tribunal sees it, this phrase that's now being inquired about was mentioned
in the testimony of this witness. It's certainly proper for counsel for the
defense to ask the witness directly as to what he meant, what he means by the
use of that expression. If, that is, as we take it to be in a general way, the
purpose of counsel for the defense, it's proper.
DR. GIERLICHS: Answer
my question.
DR. KRUEGER: This morning, I said this was a very
difficult decision; at least, it was a very difficult decision for many people
— how one was best to conduct oneself after Hitler came to power. I also
mentioned that Bosch, von Moellendorff, Hummel, and Kalle inclined to an
attitude which would have meant rejection or even a negative attitude; but
since, after all, the majority was of the view that such an attitude would have
cut at the life roots of I.G. Farben, that it did represent a personal luxury
if the firm would follow the idea of resistance, that for men who were
responsible for the enterprise it was not a starting point for practical
management because it would not lead to any success and, at this juncture, the
majority — at least that's how I saw it and how I felt it and how I heard
it — the majority believed that the strategy of "howling with the wolves,"
as one says in German, that this strategy would be the best. |
| |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
445 |
. 
