 |
battlefield, and finally into a heap of rubble. Prior to his starting
work there the plants in Essen had been destroyed to a large extent. A quick
breakdown followed. The periods of respite between air raids were not
sufficient to restore the normal Krupp order of administration. Many
improvisations had to replace former well thought out administrative work.
Dr. Janssen’s work entirely excluded the possibility of his being
employed on labor questions. Therefore, he had even less to do with foreign
workers, prisoners of war, and prisoner labor. Furthermore, at the time when
Dr. Janssen came to Essen, there had been put into effect to its full extent, a
government program which had not only originated with the government but also
had been directed and effected by it.
I shall strengthen the
supposition of his innocence by proofs of his good character and his love for
the truth.
I undertook, together with Dr. Behling, the job of providing
the Tribunal with a short review of the financial development of the Krupp
concern. It will be shown that the allegations of the prosecution about the
financial effects of arms production and the war conditions on Krupp are quite
incorrect. Since my client did not take over the management of finances in
Essen until April 1943, I shall only describe the financial developments from
this time until the end of the war and thereby also deal with the financing of
the Bertha Works. Also, by reason of the division of topics, I have undertaken
the task of dealing with the far-reaching but so far unproved allegations of
the prosecution concerning the “affiliated firms of Krupp which are
distributed all over the globe” [indictment, section I, paragraph 6] and
their foreign patents and contracts, their license agreements with American
firms, and their alleged camouflage [indictment, section I, paragraph 21]. That
the prosecution failed to give proof here is another typical example for the
difference between the allegations and the evidence of the prosecution.
During the presentation of evidence I shall finally present material
which will disprove the theories of the prosecution on the questions of
participation in the sense of Control Law No. 10, and on the conspiracy they
allege. I shall deal with both subjects on behalf of the whole of the defense.
As far as the term conspiracy is concerned, may I here refer to my
memorandum of 15 March 1948, in which I reserved the right to make a statement
on the very unclear term “conspiracy” brought up by the prosecution
in as far as a conspiracy to wage an aggressive war continues to be alleged by
the prosecution. What the prosecution desires to be understood under this
common plan, fluctuates in a wide are between the conspiracy from
|
172 |
. 
