 |
| documents. Footnotes have been employed freely to relate various
items of evidence reproduced at different points and to indicate
omissions. |
| |
| |
B. Defense Motion for a Finding of not Guilty on the Charges of
Aggressive War, and Answer of the Prosecution Thereto
|
| |
| I. Introduction |
| |
On 17 December 1947, the Tribunal held a special session to take up
any outstanding matters prior to hearing the opening statements of the defense
which were scheduled to begin the next day. Near the close of the special
session, Dr. von Metzler, counsel for the defendant Haefliger, announced that
he had filed a written motion in the usual manner and stated that "my
colleagues feel that this is a motion of such a fundamental importance that it
should be read with Your Honors' permission into the record" (tr. p.
4677). After argument the Tribunal denied the request that the motion be
read (tr. pp. 4677-4683).
The motion, reproduced in full in 2
below, was the most important single motion filed in the case. Defense counsel
summarized it as "a motion for a finding of not guilty as to the charges and
all the particulars under counts one and five" (crimes against peace and
conspiracy to commit crimes against peace) and also as to the charges and
particulars under count two so far as it covers the alleged spoliation in
Austria and Czechoslovakia" (tr. p. 4677). The motion attacked the basic
theory of the prosecution with respect to aggressive war, particularly as
developed in the "Preliminary Memorandum Brief of the Prosecution," filed on 12
December 1947 shortly after the prosecution had rested its case in chief. The
motion is replete with citations from the judgment of the International
Military Tribunal, particularly with respect to the state of mind required to
be proven before a finding of guilt for crimes against the peace can be made.
The motion declared that "The entire evidence introduced by the prosecution on
the part which I.G. Farben played in the military and economic war preparation
of Germany can be left completely aside and is irrelevant so long as the
prosecution had not proved the special knowledge required by the IMT of
Hitler's secret aggressive plan and the direct participation in these plannings
by the defendants."
The prosecution's answer of 5 January 1948, set
forth in full in 3 below, likewise relied heavily upon quotations from the
|
472 |
. 
