 |
The defendants affirmatively assert that they thought they were
expanding the military might of Germany on this vast scale for defensive
purposes; that they did not actually believe that Hitler would make war, though
they feared it; that they thought Hitler was only “bluffing” and
would find peaceful solutions for the territorial demands he so loudly
proclaimed prior to the initial acts of aggression. They assert that they were
misled by the contradictory nature of the Nazi propaganda.
We are thus
brought to the central issue of the charges insofar as the aggressive war
charges are concerned. Acts of substantial participation by certain defendants
are established by overwhelming proof. The only real issue of fact is whether
it was accompanied by the state of mind requisite in law to establish
individual and personal guilt. Does the evidence in this case establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the acts of the defendants in preparing Germany for war
were done with knowledge of Hitler’s aggressive aims and with the criminal
purpose of furthering such aims.
In every criminal case the presence or
absence of criminal knowledge or intent can only be established by weighing the
sum total of the evidence: on this basis it may be found to have existed
although the defendant denies it, or it may be found not to have existed
although the defendant asserts it. Knowledge, hence, must be proven by direct
evidence or by circumstances warranting the conclusion that the defendant was
informed or had knowledge that the authorities with whom he was cooperating
were planning aggressive war. It is fundamental that knowledge may be imputed
from acts, from positions held, from opportunities and channels of information
available to individuals. But the sum total of the evidence must be convincing
to the trier of fact to warrant the conclusion that proof beyond reasonable
doubt is present. Furthermore, the knowledge required in crimes against peace
is analogous to specific intent and great care must be exercised before finding
that it exists beyond reasonable doubt with respect to any defendant.
After these preliminary statements, it will be of value to review, in
summary first, some of the more significant items in the evidence relied upon
by the prosecution bearing upon the question of the state of mind, and later to
review in more detail the comprehensive course of action in which the
defendants, through the instrumentality of Farben, were engaged during the
period under consideration.
The Criminal Intent or State of Mind
The extent of Farben’s complete integration into a system of
governmental planning and preparation for war, as will be later shown, and the
extent of participation by certain defendants in formulating and executing
policies on these matters with the Nazi regime, present a picture of
coordinated and sustained activity. From this general |
1217 |
. 
