 |
the early rejection of the connection between crimes against the
peace and war crimes as contained in count four of the indictment.
A
further attempt of the prosecution to escape the above-mentioned burden of
proof seems to me to be contained in the assertion that the Krupp firm is a
criminal organization so that membership in this firm would suffice for
sentence. Would that not indicate that all employees and workers of the Krupp
firm including foreigners would have to be considered members of a criminal
organization? The IMT declared only a limited circle of organizations as
criminal with clear intent. Is this circle to be somewhat extended?
Since precedent still is lacking in questions of responsibility of
private businessmen for the preparation and waging of aggressive war, the
defense with regard to the question of spoliation and foreign workers is in a
different and even better position on the basis of the judgment in the Flick
trial.¹ Since this judgment was made public only in December 1947, there
was no possibility when the indictment in the Krupp trial was served to
consider knowledge of this judgment as limitation of the charges raised. Since
then, however, there certainly has been opportunity for such limitation. Since
the prosecution has made no use of this situation the defense must once again
go into all charges here as well, without regard to whether the standard of the
Flick judgment can have any legal significance at all. In this matter, too, the
defense will take pains, moreover, to indicate the limitation which the
prosecution has permitted to be lacking. In their attempt to shorten
proceedings, the defense is taking a risk.
An example of this is as
follows: The prosecution cites as proof of the systematic spoliation of
occupied territories a speech made by Goering to the administrative officials
of the eastern territories on 6 August 1942, in which he stated :²
“This everlasting concern about foreign people must cease now, once and
for all.”
As enticing as it may be, the defense will refrain from
extending their proof by calling persons who were present when this speech was
made and who could prove that this everlasting concern for foreign people did
not cease even after this speech on 6 August 1942. The reason for refraining is
that the Goering speech has to do with the delivery of food from Russia to
Germany, and for this branch of the [German] economy, counsel for the defense
are unable, even with the greatest effort, to recognize any responsibility on
the part of the defendants in this case. |
__________
¹ United States
vs. Friedrich Flick, et al., Case 5, judgment, vol VI.
²
Trial of the Major War Criminals, op. cit, supra. vol. I, p. 239.
142 |
. 
