 |
which made it possible upon Hitler’s rise to power to start
immediately the large-scale production of tanks, artillery, and submarines of
the most advanced and modern types. They knew that without this secret
designing of armament by Krupp in conjunction with the German army and navy,
the Anschluss and the subsequent wars of aggression could not have taken place
or, in any event, would have been considerably delayed. Gustav Krupp and the
Krupp firm correctly forecast and gambled that Germany would again “fight
to rise” and as a part of the winning stakes they were able to obtain the
Berndorfer works through Nazi political pressure.
A highway robber
enters a bank and at the point of a pistol forces officials of the bank to part
unwillingly with assets of the bank. Here the means of coercion was not one
pistol but the entire armed and police might which had invaded Austria. That
the facts, as proved, constitute extortion there can be no doubt. The question
to be determined is whether they constitute a war crime under Article II,
paragraph 1(b) of Control Council Law No. 10 and under the General Laws
and Customs of War. To answer this question, reference must be made to the
finding of the IMT:* |
| |
“The invasion of Austria was
a premeditated aggressive step * * * the facts plainly prove that the methods
employed * * * were those of an aggressor. The ultimate factor was the armed
might of Germany ready to be used if any resistance was encountered * *
*.” |
| Concerning Czechoslovakia, the IMT found that Bohemia and Moravia
were also seized by Germany, under the threat “That German troops had
already received orders to march and that any resistance would be broken with
physical force * * *.” The IMT also found that, concerning Bohemia and
Moravia, the laws and customs of war applied. Said the IMT: |
| |
“The occupation of Bohemia
and Moravia must * * * be considered a military occupation covered by the rules
of warfare.” |
| Such ruling was not made by the IMT concerning Austria because there
was no reason to make such a ruling: war crimes concerning Austria were not
charged in the case before it. It is difficult to conceive of any real
difference between the seizure of Austria and the seizure of Bohemia and
Moravia. If anything, the seizure of Austria was a more flagrant act of
military aggression because in the case of Bohemia and Moravia, the
Czechoslovakian President and Foreign Minister had — although under
pressure — con- […sented] |
__________
* Trial of the Major War
Criminals. op. cit. supra. page 193 and 194.
1459 |
. 
