|
“His activities in charge of German armament production were in
aid of the war effort in the same way that other productive enterprises aid in
the waging of war; but the Tribunal is not prepared to find that such
activities involve engaging in the common plan to wage aggressive war * * * or
waging aggressive war * * *.”¹ |
| |
The fact that the entire German economy was controlled by the State
during the war is recognized by the Court and has been satisfactorily
demonstrated by the prosecution itself. If the supreme control of the
entire armaments industry exercised by the competent Reich Minister was not
considered to be participation in the waging of the war, then surely the
control of an individual enterprise exercised by a private technician or
business man can not be considered to be “waging of war.”
19.
To summarize —
a. The evidence of the prosecution is not
sufficient to find the defendants guilty of participation in a conspiracy or a
common plan to commit crimes against peace, or of a crime against peace
committed by the planning or preparation of an aggressive war, because the
prosecution has not maintained that they actually had knowledge of concrete
aggressive plans.
b. The evidence of the prosecution is not
sufficient to find the defendants guilty of a crime against peace committed by
the waging of an aggressive war, since their activities in the war economy are
not to be considered as the waging of war. |
|
On behalf of (in Vertretung)
Attorney at Law Kranzbuehler
(Signature) DR. WECKER
[Signed] KRANZBUEULER |
| |
| Nuernberg, 11 March 1948 |
| |
| |
E. Extract from Prosecution’s Answer to Defense Motion
for Acquittal on Charges of Crimes Against
Peace |
| |
Excerpt from the Answer of the Prosecution to Motion of Defense
for Acquittal on Charges of Crimes Against
Peace² |
| |
| The following answer is made to the motion of the defense [filed] 12
March 1948 for acquittal on the charge of crimes against peace. |
__________ 
. 
