Transcript for NMT 10: Krupp Case

Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal No. III-A in the matter of the United States of America against Alfred Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 17 November 1947 0930, Justice H. C.Anderson, presiding.

THE MARSHAL:The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III-A.

Military Tribunal No. III-S is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the Court.

THE PRESIDENT:Military Tribunal III-A will come to order.

The Tribunal will proceed with the arraignment of the defendants in Case X pending before the Tribunal.

Mr. Secretary-General, call the names of the defendants.

THESECRETARY-GENERAL: As the names of the defendants are called, each defendant will stand, answer, "Present", and remain standing until told to be seated.

Alfred Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach.

ALFREDKRUPP von BOHLEN und HALBACH: Not guilty. Present.

THESECRETARY-GENERAL: Be seated.

Ewald Looser.

EWALD LOESER:Not guilty.

THESECRETARY-GENERAL: Answer, "Present".

EWALD LOESER:Present.

Eduard Houdremont.

EDUARD HOUDREMONT:Present.

Erich Mueller.

ERICH MUELLER:Present.

Friedrich Janssen.

FRIEDRICH JANSSEN:Present.

Karl Pfirsch.

KARL PFIRSCH:Present.

Max Ihn.

MAX IHN:Present.

Karl Eberhardt.

KARL EBERHARDT:Present.

Heinrich Korschan.

HEINRICH KORSCHAN:Present.

Friedrich von Buelow.

FRIEDRICH von BUELOW: Present,

Heinrich Lehmann.

HEINRICH LEHMANN:Present.

Hans Kupke.

HANS KUPKE:Present.

Your Honors, all defendants are present.

THE PRESIDENT:The record shows that the Indictment in this case was filed in the office of the Secretary-General on the 16th day of August, 1947, and a copy thereof was served on each of the defendants in open court on the 18th day of August, 1947. We assume that each defendant is familiar with the charges set forth in the Indictment and had had the benefit of counsel. At this time we will dispense with the reading of the Indictment unless it later appears during the arraignment of the defendants that it is necessary that the same be read.

I shall now call upon the defendants to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges against them. Each defendant as his name is called will stand and speak clearly into the microphone.

At this time there will be no arguments, speeches or discussions of any kind. Each defendant will simply plead guilty or not guilty to the offenses with which he is charged by the Indictment.

THESECRETARY-GENERAL: Alfred Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach.

ALFREDKRUPP von BOHLEN und HALBACH: Not guilty.

THE PRESIDENT:Are you represented by counsel before this Tribunal?

ALFREDKRUPP von BOHLEN und HALBACH: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:Was the Indictment in the German language served upon you more than thirty days ago?

THE PRESIDENT:Are you familiar with the charges and specifications contained in the Indictment, and have you read the Indictment?

THE PRESIDENT:Are you now ready to plead to the Indictment?

THE PRESIDENT:How do you plead to this Indictment, guilty or not guilty?

ALFREDKRUPP von BOHLEN und HALBACH: Not guilty.

Ewald Loeser.

EWALD LOESER:Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:Are you ready to plead to the Indictment?

EWALD LOESER:Yes.

Court III-A Case X

EWALD LOESER:Not guilty.

Eduard Houdremont.

EDUARD HOUDREMONT:Yes.

EDUARD HOUDREMONT:Not guilty.

THE PRESIDENT:The question was are you ready to plead to the Indictment?

THE PRESIDENT:Well, how do you plead to the Indictment, guilty or not guilty?

EDUARD HOUDREMONT:Not guilty.

Erich Mueller.

ERICH MUELLER:Yes.

ERICH MUELLER:Not guilty.

Friedrich Janssen.

JUDGE DALY:Are you represented by counsel before this Tribunal?

FRIEDRICH JANSSEN:Yes.

JUDGE DALY:Was the Indictment in the German language served upon you more than thirty days ago?

JUDGE DALY:Are you familiar with the charges and specifications contained in the Indictment, and have you read the Indictment?

JUDGE DALY:Are you now ready to plead to the Indictment?

JUDGE DALY:How do you plead to this Indictment, guilty or not guilty?

FRIEDRICH JANSSEN:Not guilty.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL:Be seated. Karl Pfirsch.

KARL PFIRSCH:Yes.

JUDGE DALY:How do you plead to the Indictment, guilty or not guilty?

KARL PFIRSCH:Not guilty.

THESECRETARY-GENERAL: Be seated. Max Ihn.

MAX IHN:Yes.

MAX IHN:Not guilty.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL:Be seated.

Karl Eberhardt.

KARL EBERHARDT:Yes.

KARL EBERHARDT:Not guilty.

THESECRETARY-GENERAL: Be seated. Heinrich Korschan.

JUDGE WILKINS:Are you represented by counsel before this Tribunal?

HEINRICH KORSCHAN:Yes.

JUDGE WILKINS:Was the Indictment in the German language served upon you more than thirty days ago?

JUDGE WILKINS:Are you familiar with the charges and the specifications contained in the Indictment, and have you read the Indictment?

JUDGE WILKINS:Are you now ready to plead to the Indictment?

JUDGE WILKINS:What is your plea guilty or not guilty?

HEINRICH KORSCHAN:Not guilty.

THESECRETARY-GENERAL: Be seated. Friedrich von Buelow.

FRIEDRICH VON BUELOW:Yes.

JUDGE WILKINS:Was the Indictment in the German Language served upon you more than thirty days ago?

JUDGE WILKINS:Are you now ready to plead to the Indictment?

JUDGE WILKINS:What is your plea to the Indictment, guilty or not guilty?

FRIEDRICH VON BUELOW:Not guilty.

THESECRETARY-GENERAL: Be seated. Heinrich Lehmann.

HEINRICH LEHMANN:Yes.

JUDGE WILKINS:Was the Indictment in the German language served upon you more than thirty d ays ago?

JUDGE WILKINS:Are you now ready to plead to this Indictment?

JUDGE WILKINS:How do you plead to the Indictment, guilty or not guilty?

HEINRICH LEHMANN:Not guilty.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL:Be seated. Hans Kupke.

HANS KUPKE:Yes.

JUDGE WILKINS:Was the Indictment in the German language served upon you more than thirty days ago?

HANS KUPKE:Yes.

JUDGE WILKINS:Are you familiar with the charges and the specifications contained in the Indictment , and have you read the Indictment?

HANS KUPKE:Yes.

JUDGE WILKINS:Are you now ready to plead to this Indictment?

HANS KUPKE:Yes.

JUDGE WILKINS:How do you plead to the Indictment, guilty or not guilty?

HANS KUPKE:Not guilty.

THE PRESIDENT:The pleas of the defendants will be entered by the Secretary General in the records of the Tribunal. Now, for the benefit of counsel for both the Prosecution and the Defense, the Tribunal desires to make certain announcements and observations.

Because of the time required for the translation of documents, it will be necessary that they be filed at some date in advance of the conclusion of the trial of the case. For that reason, after the taking of evidence begins, a date will be fixed by this Tribunal, of which you will have ample and due notice, after which no documents will be received. It will be necessary, therefore, that you get your documents in order and be ready to present them early in the trial of the case. We warn you now that when this deadline date has been fixed, no documents will be received thereafter.

The Tribunal is of the opinion that the reading of documents at the time they are introduced in evidence will not be helpful and will consume too much of the Tribunal's time during court hours. All documents admitted in evidence will be read in full and analyzed by the Tribunal prior to final judgment. You will simply identify your documents; both the Prosecution and the Defense introduce them in evidence, calling the Tribunal's attention to the material portions of the exhibits, and later, of course, you may refer to them in your briefs or final argument.

Counsel will not be expected to, nor will it be necessary to, object to the admission of documents at the time they are offered. Such objections may be made later in the briefs to be filed by counsel, or in final argument.

Counsel will not be expected to, nor will it be necessary to, object to the admission of documents at the time they are offered. Such objections may be made later in the briefs to be filed by counsel, or in final arguments.

The Tribunal in its final judgment will exclude from consideration all documents which, in the opinion of the members of the Tribunal, have no probative value. We desire to make this clear to both sides at the outset. We will countenance no unusual or unreasonable delays when the taking of testimony once gets under way. We will grant no long continuances and will and will recess only for such short periods as may seem reasonable and just under all of the circumstances.

Our chief purpose will be to see that this case is heard expeditiously and that all of the defendants receive a fair trial, in accordance with our American concepts of justice.

The Tribunal desires to recess until Monday, December the first, two weeks from today. Is there any reason why both sides cannot be ready to proceed at that time?

GENERAL TAYLOR:Your Honors, the Prosecution had planned to be able to proceed at that time and is most reluctant to ask for any further delay. However, about ten days ago, the chief counsel in Case No. 5, the Flick Case, pending before Tribunal No. IV, became seriously ill and incapacitated for further participation in that case. Unfortunately, for that reason it has become necessary for certain counsel in this case to pinch-hit in connection with the Closing argument in the Flick Case. The evidence in that case has closed and all that remains are the closing arguments by counsel. Those arguments are scheduled by Tribunal No. IV for the week of November 24th to the 29th, and the arguments for the Prosecution will be made on November 24th.

I am very much afraid that several counsel in this case-- including myself -- will be completely occupied with that Flick argument until November 24th, and I feel that we would need approximately two weeks thereafter to prepare adequately the opening in this case.

Accordingly, the Prosecution respectfully requests that the opening date be set for either Monday, December 8 or Tuesday, December 9. I make that suggestion the alternative. The Prosecution can be ready to proceed on December 8. An opening on Monday, however, imposes quite a burden on translation and reproduction facilities, and it will require a great deal of overtime and week-end work. If the Tribunal deems it necessary from the standpoint of expedition, I am sure that all members of the staff will willingly cooperate to work on the week-end and bring that about.

Accordingly, the Prosecution requests that the opening be postponed to either the 8th or 9th of December.

DR.KRANZBUEHLER (Speaking for the Defense): The Defense has no objections to the proposal of the Prosecution that the proceedings be postponed to the 8th of December or, better, to the 9th of December, for the time being, but I would like to use this proposal of the Prosecution in order to submit the wishes of the Defense concerning what can be done in this interim period in order to guarantee a faster continuance of the proceedings.

The Tribunal has just announced that the documents are not to be read in the proceedings in the main but are only to be identified. The center of gravity of the proceedings will therefore lie to a large extent outside the courtroom, and the Defense counsel will have to be able to prepare in good time for these documents in order to be in a position to obtain their own evidence.

The Prosecution has already started to make accessible some documents to the Defense--about 130 of them so far. In view of the fact that the Prosecution will no doubt submit more than a thousand documents altogether, this is a very small number.

The Defense is at present quite unable to prepare in a suitable manner becuase, in our view, the Prosecution has not adhered to the proceedings laid down in Ordinance No. 7. I need only give the Tribunal one or two examples to show this.

Under Count 1, Crimes Against the Peace, all twelve defendants are charged --but in the specifications under Count 1 only nine defendants are mentioned by name.

Under Count II, Spoliation, ten defendants are charged but only the names of three are specified.

Finally, under Count III, so-called Slave Labor. As a result we don't even know at present which of the defendants are to be charged with any definite crimes.

A second point which is particularly noticeable is the complete lack of restriction of time under Count 1 of the Indictment. The defendants are charged with Crimes Against the Peace at a time before the 8th of May 1945--but how far back this period goes is not mentioned.

The only date which I have been able to establish is the year 1814, when the first generation of the Krupp family was active. With such an unlimited period of time we do not know where to start with our work.

We would, therefore, like to ask the Tribunal--and I suggest that the Prosecution be charged with specifying the Indictment in such a my that the various crimes charged to the individual defendants are recognizable to us in good time before the opening statement.

We would like to have three copies for each defendant of these documents because only if we have that number can we discuss them properly with the defendants and, at the same time, have further evidence of our own collected by our assistant Defense Counsel.

I would like to submit a second request. The entire material of the Krupp files has been confiscated. This is probably something like several thousand documents. We cannot prepare the Defense unless we are in possession of this material. We recognize the fact that up to now the Prosecution has made some of the documents available to us, something like 150 in fact, but we ask that the Prosecution be instructed to make all documents available to us which they confiscated, also in good time before the opening statement, which contains material which might become of interest fo. these proceedings.

I would expressly like to draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that only in this way we will be able to cooperate in expediting proceedings in the way that the Tribunal wishes.

With reference to the Tribunal's conclusions just announced, I would like to reserve the right, whether these decisions in any way affect the rights of the defendants, to discuss these questions with my colleagues and possibly make written application through the proper channels to the Tribunal.

GENERAL TAYLOR:May it please the Court, I think there will be no substantial difficulty on our part in meeting most of Dr. Kranzbuehler's requests.

As a matter of fact, a room for Defense counsel, in which we made available a great many of the Krupp files, was opened on the 13th of September, several weeks ago, and we are furnishing to them the documents that we propose to introduce in evidence as rapidly as they can be processed; that is, duplicated, translated, and so forth. The first five document books that we plan to offer in evidence will be ready for delivery to the Defense as soon as they are bound. As to the request for three copies of documents, I would like to consult with the paper supply before making a definite answer on that. But in all other respects I think there is very little difficulty.

A certain few documents, of course, the Prosecution may with hold for rebuttal or cross-examination, but certainly the vast majority of the documents we propose to introduce can be made available to the Defense prior to the opening date of December 8, which we have suggested.

THE PRESIDENT:The request for additional copies of the documents will be referred to the Secretary General, and he will undoubtedly work out something that is satisfactory.

Military Tribunal III-A will be in recess until Monday, December the 8th, next.

THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal will be in recess until the 8th of December.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 8 December 1947, at 0930 hours.)

Court No. III, Case No. X.

Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the Matter of the United States of America against Alfried Krupp, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 8 December 1947, 0930-1630, Honorable H.C. Anderson presiding.

THE MARSHAL:Persons in the courtroom will please take their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.

Military Tribunal III is new in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Marshal, ascertain if all the defendants are present.

THE MARSHAL:May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Secretary General, note for the record the presence of the defendants in the court.

There are one or two preliminary matters to be disposed of. Last weed the Tribunal received a petition from counsel for the defendant Houdremont inquiring as to the result of a previously ordered physical examination to determine whether he was able to stand trial. It seems that an order to that effect was made by the executive presiding judge before this Tribunal was organized, but for some reason the result was not announced. On receipt of the petition the Tribunal referred the matter to the prison physician with the direction that another examination be made. That was done, and reported in writing. The opinion of the prison physician was that the defendant was able to stand trial. An order was accordingly entered, at Chambers on last Friday. The opinion of the prison physician and the order will be made a part of the record in the court.

One other matter. Counsel for the Prosecution and Dr. Kranzbuehler, a representative of the Defense counsel, at their joint request met with the members of the Tribunal in an informal conference on 2 December 1947, for the purpose of discussing certain aspects of the announcement made by the Tribunal on the day the defendants were arraigned, as well as certain other matters.

As a result of that conference, the following statement is made:

One: With respect to fixing the date after which no documentary evidence will be received, it has come to our attention that in some of the cases heretofore tried a large mass of documentary evidence was introduced on the last day of the trial, with the result that the sitting Tribunal could not begin consideration of their judgment until the documents were translated. There was thus caused considerable delay, during which the members of the Tribunal were necessarily idle. This Tribunal intends to prevent that situation if it can be done without prejudice to any substantial right of the defendants, and to that end made the announcement about which counsel inquired. If, as the trial progresses, the plan announced still seems feasible, it will be carried out.

Two: With respect to the necessity of objections to the admission of documents at the time they are offered in evidence, it was intended to give notice that in order to expedite the trial it would not be necessary to object to documentary evidence on the ground that it lacked the requisite probative value; that in their final judgment the Tribunal would consider and determine that question with respect to all documentary evidence, without regard to whether specific objection had been made to its introduction, but that both Prosecution and Defense would have a full opportunity to be heard upon all such questions in the final arguments and briefs. The original statement is amplified to the extent of making clear that objections to evidence on other grounds may be made at the time the evidence is offered.

Three: As to the request of the representative of the Defense to clarify the matter of saving their rights when cross examination of a witness is waived, the members of the Tribunal have considered this question and announce the following as a general rule: Where a witness testifies orally from the witness stand, he shall be cross examined at the conclusion of the direct examination. When it is desired to cross examine an affiant whose affidavit has been admitted in evidence, it shall be done following the reading of the affidavit, if the affiant is then available. If the affiant is available and not cross examined at that time, whether the Tribunal will require him produced for cross examination at some subsequent date will depend upon the particular circumstances of each case, including a reasonable showing as to why the affiant was not cross examined at the time he was available for the purpose. This ruling is made in anticipation of the probability that some of the affiants will have come from a distance in order to be available for cross examination, and the ruling, of course, presupposes that in every instance where the Prosecution offers an affidavit in evidence, a copy thereof will have been furnished counsel for the Defense at least twentyfour hours prior to the time the affidavit is offered. Where the Defense desires to cross-examine an affiant and he is not available at the time his affidavit is introduced, he must be produced for that purpose before the Defense will be required to proceed with its case. Otherwise, the affidavit will not be considered by the Tribunal in reaching their final conclusion on the merits.

Is the Prosecution ready to proceed with the opening of the case?

CENTRAL TAYLOR:Yes, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT:Very well. Proceed.

GENERAL TAYLOR:Of all the names which have become associated with the Nurnberg trials, I suppose that none has been a "household word" for so many decades -- indeed for nearly a century -- as that of Krupp. Today the name "Krupp" is freighted with associations and preconceptions. For some people it is the name which heads the list of arms-makers -- Schneider-Creusot, Vickers, Skoda, and others -- who, it is said, stir up wars and, with a zeal which transcends mere patriotism, arm all the legions of Mars with terrible, impartiality. For others,the name of Krupp weighs level in the balance with the sum total of von Klucks and Kluges and Kuechlers and Kleists and all the gallery of tightlipped German war lords; so regarded, Krupp and the German militarists are the indestructible common denominator of Germany's murderous end obstinately-repeated lunges at the world's throat.

Just because "Krupp" is so meaningful and historic a name, the true basis and purpose of this case are not unlikely to be misunderstood. We do not seek, in this case, to level any attack against the business of making arms as such. We are not trying to prove chat all wars derive from the sinister machinations of armament manufacturers and their sales agents. The armourer's trade is no more inherently unlawful that that of the soldier or diplomat; call of these professions revolve around war and statecraft, but that does not make them criminal per se.

------

Furthermore, the individual defendants in this case are not being prosecuted for the sins of others, or because the name "Krupp" has acquired over the years a sinister sheen. The men in the box are not symbols, nor are they charged as representatives of other men. It is true, of course, that the charges in this case arise out of acts committed by or in the name of the Krupp firm. And it is true that most of the crimes with which the defendants are charged were committed by them in their capacity as Krupp officials. But no man in the dock was named in the indictment merely because of his association with the Krupp firm; each defendant was named because the prosecution believes, and is confident that it can prove, his personal criminal responsibility.

We are not dealing in this case with men who rose to power by riding the crest of the Nazi wave. That most of the defendants were members of the Nazi party is a significant fact, but it is not part of the basic framework of this case.

Nazism was, after all, only the temporary political manifestation of certain ideas and attitudes which long antedated Nazism, and which will not perish nearly as easily. In this case, we are at grips with something much older than Nazism; something which fused with Nazi ideas to produce the Third Reich, but which has its own independent and pernicious vitality.

We cannot, therefore, comprehend the actions or judge the guilt or innocence of these defendants without some familiarity with the setting in which those acts occurred. And that setting is the Krupp firm and family enterprise -- its plants, its techniques and, most of all, its history and traditions. We do not indict these defendants because of the history of the Krupp firm, but that history will shed much light on the motives which le d the defendants to do the acts with which today they are charged.

In opening a case of such historic import, there is a natural; impulse to dramatize the occasion by ringing all the changes on the name "Krupp", which was described two years ago by Mr. Justice Jackson as ...the focus, the symbol, and the beneficiary of the most sinister forces engaged in menacing the peace of Europe.

But in fact our task is far too grave and serious to warrant any indulgence in forensics. The pages of Krupp history need no underlining; we have not indicted these men to make a show, but because we believe that the evidence will prove them to be criminals. We will postpone any further characterization or general comment, and proceed at once to the charges. ---------------1. Vol. I, Trial of the Major War Criminals, p. 134 The acts and events on which the charges in Count One are based began nearly thirty years ago.

The earlier history of the Krupp firm is important only as background, and we will sketch it in at this time in the briefest manner only for the purpose of clarifying the scope and nature of the Krupp firm at the end of the First World War, when the story of this case begins.

A. Historical Background The firm of Fried, Krupp was founded in 1811 as a small cast steel foundry in the city of Essen, in the Ruhr.

The firm retained its family character throughout the early part of the 19th century; when Friedrich Krupp died in 1826, he was succeeded by his eldest son, Alfried. Alfried Krupp was the sole owner and manager of the firm for over 60 years, until his death in 1887, and it was under his management that the firm grew from an obscure foundry into the largest and most notorious armament enterprise of all time. Krupp cannon construction dates from just over a century ago, from 1844, when the Prussian military authorities ordered an experimental one-ton gun of cast steel, and the first complete shop for the manufacture of guns was built in 1861. Krupp fame and fortune were derived basically from the unification of Germany, the German wars against Denmark and Austria, and the Franco-Prussiaa war ol 1870. The victorious German armies were extensively armed with Krupp guns, and after the Franco-Prussian war, Alfried Krupp was commonly referred to as the "cannon king".

But if it was as a gunsmith that Alfried Krupp attained world--wide fame nevertheless he did not allow his enterprises to remain limited to armament manufacture alone. The Krupp iron and steel mills participated extensively in the early construction of German railroads. With the development of the Bessemer process, steel making became a big business. In order to give his enterprises their own source of raw materials, Krupp acquired extensive coal mines and iron ore beds. Later on, in furtherance of his export interests, Krupp acquired transport ships and docking interests in the Netherlands.

Transcript for NMT 10: Krupp Case

Defendants