 |
Germany that of Krupp alone was enabled to continue as a family
enterprise free from the manifold burdens of a corporate structure. All of the
officials of the firm were important in industrial life in Germany and far from
lacking influential friends.
Moreover, in all fairness it must be said
that in any view of the evidence the defendants, in a concentration camp, would
not have been in a worse plight than the thousands of helpless victims whom
they daily exposed to danger of death, great bodily harm from starvation, and
the relentless air raids upon the armament plants; to say nothing of
involuntary servitude and the other indignities which they suffered. The
disparity in the number of the actual and potential victims is also thought
provoking.
This phase of the case must not be left without reference to
the fact that there is a flat contradiction running throughout the defense of
necessity. Upon the one hand it is said that the acts of omission and
commission were required by the multitude of directives issued by state
authorities which the defendants were bound to obey under penalty of grievous
injury. Upon the other hand, it is said that they risked grave danger by
violating such directives and even defying the Gestapo in order to mitigate the
plight of the victims. There are numerous examples of this for which there is
neither time nor space. The record speaks for itself. Three instances, however,
may be referred to. The Gestapo issued an order that pregnancy of eastern
workers should be interfered with. This was contrary to the law and the ethics
of the medical profession. The Krupp doctor did not want to obey the directive,
but was afraid to take a stand without the backing of the officials of the
firm. The defense claims that he was given this backing unqualifiedly,
notwithstanding that throughout this case the power and influence of the
Gestapo is held out as being one of the factors which hung over the heads of
the defendants.
As a preface to the second instance, we quote from the
final plea made by counsel for defendants Krupp and Ihn. After referring to the
establishment of the Central Planning Board, and the so-called “tapeworm
decree,” he states (Tr. p. 12571): |
| |
“There is only one sentence
which is quite clear in this decree. Only one man has the sole responsibility
of meeting the requirements of war production, and that man is Speer, and he is
also the man who issues very clear instructions prohibiting any considerations
of private economy in industry.
“It is self-evident that no
factory is any longer authorized to engage in peacetime production. But even
any planning for peacetime conditions is strictly prohibited. Ruthless action
is taken against any managers who disregard this prohibition,
|
1446 |
. 
