 |
theses, thus for instance, whether facts which occurred before 1
September 1939 can be made a basis for the charge of aggressive war and
spoliation. The judgment in the IMT trial, as well as the judgment in the Flick
trial, has rejected such facts as are connected for instance with the
annexation of Austria in March 1938, or with the occupation of the Sudetenland
based on the Munich agreement of 1 October 1938, or with the Aryanization prior
to 1 September 1939. The IMT judgment rejected the collective guilt of Germany
as propagated by the prosecution and demanded a positive knowledge of
Hitler’s aggressive plans if sentence for aggressive warfare was to be
passed. The facts of rearmament and violations against the Treaty of Versailles
have been dealt with thoroughly and in detail in the IMT judgment and no guilt
was established with regard to this count. The prosecution however was not
moved by this ruling, it repeated its old theses with which we are acquainted
here in Nuernberg for the past 2 ½ years and it is not aware of any new
developments, of any variations. The only progress which may be ascertained
with regard to the prosecution, consists in their waiving the trial already
prepared against the German banking syndicates.
The complete similarity
in the indictment against the three largest concerns confirms the thesis,
repeatedly represented by me, that the prosecution does not wish to prosecute
the individual defendant but that it wishes to prosecute the whole of the
German industry and the whole of the German economy. It is a mere
coincidence that the defendants had the misfortune to be working in one of the
largest and best known concerns. The fundamental charges raised against the
defendants may be raised against numerous Germans and this was actually done.
In this connection one need consider only the large number of Germans that were
subject to so called “automatic arrest” and the great number of
industrialists who for more than 2 years were arrested as so called
“witnesses” and were or still are confined in the Nuernberg prison.
With regard to count one, aggressive warfare, not only the defendants
but the whole industry is charged with having given support to Hitler in
general and support to his aggressive plans. The same is true with respect to
count two, spoliation, and count three, employment of forced labor
and prisoners of war. In the opinion of the prosecution all activity of an
industrial enterprise in the occupied area is to be regard as spoliation and as
a war crime. If this were correct, every German who, during the course of the
war worked in the occupied territory within the sphere of the German industry
would be guilty of this crime. In the opinion of the prosecution the mere
employment of a foreign worker and the employment of |
903432 — 51 —
14
193 |
. 
