 |
[pre…] sent my views briefly. Apart from diverse documents I
will call only one witness who by virtue of his leading position was acquainted
with all details of the Four Year Plan, and who is able to give information
about its basic purpose.
This expert in the field of steel engineering
problems, whom I shall yet mention, will testify in a similar manner as has
been done in my client's publication that, apart from the general economic
considerations of the Four Year Plan, the results achieved in the iron industry
under the Four Year Plan really constituted a definite warning against war.
The second point which I must treat is concerned with the claim of the
prosecution that the so-called economic mobilization represents a specific
preparation for aggressive warfare. It is a generally recognized fact that
every state which supports an army must as a consequence of its armed forces
make preparations for using it in case of emergency and take the necessary
economic measures in this case, if the government and the armed forces are not
to expose themselves to the charge of gross neglect. There was an interesting
hearing of a witness in the prosecution’s case-in-chief by which it was
established that the so-called mobilization planning was begun a long time
before the National Socialist government, that a German officer was assigned to
the Army of the United States of America in order to study their economic
mobilization plans and that the ideas brought back from there were only partly
realized by the outbreak of the war in 1939. Again, the prosecution documents
show no connection of any sort of any one of the defendants with the
mobilization planning of the iron industry. On the contrary, it may be clearly
seen from the documents that the participants in that type of discussions
— none of the defendants belong to this circle — were sworn to the
strictest secrecy. Furthermore the numerical quotas of the mobilization
planning of the iron industry amounted to about two-thirds of normal
production. For every intelligent person, this was a further portent of war,
like the Four Year Plan.
Finally, in the indictment and in the opening
statement, it was stated several times that, in particular, research at Krupp
was based on the sinister aggressive plans of the National Socialist system. It
was even intimated that the employment of Mr. Houdremont and Mr. Korschan in
1926-1927, at the time when the Inter-Allied Disarmament Commission dissolved,
took place with regard to laying a metallurgical technical foundation for
rearmament and for preparation for aggressive warfare. One cannot help
wondering — if one desires to follow the ideas of the prosecution in
attributing a special skill in concealment to the Krupp firm — that it
entrusted its preparation for aggressive war- […fare] |
154 |
. 
