 |
But things are not always this simple, and in many details we shall
have to prove to the Tribunal that the prosecution has submitted a one-sided
and therefore incorrect depiction of actual events. The prosecution has
admitted, however, that in instances of “spoliation” one acted as one
would if one were actually paying).¹ We shall prove that the Krupp firm in
all cases wherein it received something, not only acted as it would if it were
paying, but also in reality did pay. When on the other hand, the firm
was commissioned by the Reich to take over the business operations, then it had
nothing to pay because it also did not receive anything. To what extent
business operations of this nature with which the firm was frequently burdened
can be considered as participation in spoliation is a legal question which will
be considered at a later stage of the proceedings.
An entirely
different light than the one envisaged by the prosecution is thrown on the
participation of an industrialist in the so-called “slave labor
program” by the verdict in the Flick Case. Counsel for the other
defendants will refer to the particulars regarding this count. For Mr. Alfried
Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach a responsibility under this count can only result
from his position as member of the Vorstand and as later owner of the firm, and
from his activities in the great industrial organizations, the Reich
Association Iron (RVE) and the Reich Association Coal (RVK). Therefore, the
taking of evidence in his case will cover these points. Just as the
prosecution, in arguing their accusation of preparation for war, refers to the
old tradition of the firm and the house of Krupp, the defense will also make
use of this tradition and make mention of the social achievements for which
this family has received uncontested credit until now. We feel particularly
called upon to do this as a representative of the prosecution considered it
proper to attack the social attitude and motives of the Krupp firm, in
connection with Krupp workers’ settlements, in the press.
The
prosecution caps its theory that Krupp was the great advocate of aggressive war
with a reference to the special law by which in the autumn of 1943 the A.G.
Friedrich Krupp was converted into a family enterprise of the same name. The
defense will submit to the Tribunal the origin of this “Lex Krupp”
(1387-PS,. Pros. Ex. 475)² and its 30-years’ history, and so
will create a basis for the recognition of the fact that this law does not
represent the slightest bit of evidence for this theory of prosecution, and
that it is of no importance for these proceedings. |
__________
¹ Indictement, section
I, paragraph 35, above.
² Document reproduced below in section VI B 1.
143 |
. 
