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.
After the Franco-Prussian war, Krupp became a large supplier of railroad equipment and other items used to build the railroad nets in the United States.
In 1837, the Krupp inheritance passed to Friedrich-Alfried Krupp. The rapid development and expansion of the enterprises continued. New factories were built, and new resources of coal and iron were purchased in Lorraine and in Germany proper. Krupp's principal German competitor in the field of armour plate -- the Gruson works -- was bought out and absorbed, and with the acquisition of the Germania shipyards at Kiel, Krupp entered the shipbuilding business on a large scale.
Although these were years of peace, Krupp continued to devote great emphasis to the armament business. Questions of design and scientific research were given great attention and fostered by capital investment. Krupp's own firing ranges for the testing of its guns and projectiles were greatly expanded. And, through the Germania shipyards, Krupp became a vital figure in the German government's policy of naval expansion, which came into full flower after the dismissal of Bismarck by Wilhelm II shortly before the turn of the century.
With the death of Friedrich-Alfried Krupp, the last of the male line, in 1902, the proprietary management of the firm passed to his widow, and the heiress was his sixteen-year-old daughter, Bertha Krupp. Pursuant to Friedrich Alfried's will, the Krupp firm at this time was reorganized into a private limited liability company, Fried. Krupp A.G., with a stock capitalization of 160,000 shares valued at 1,000 marks each. All but four of the shares were held by Bertha Krupp, and the remaining four, distributed only in order to comply with legal requirements, were kept under careful control. In 1906, Bertha, Krupp married Dr. Gustav von Bohlen und Halbach; the Emperor Wilhelm II conferred upon the bridegroom the right to use the name "Krupp".
Expansion of the Krupp enterprises continued right up to the outbreak of the First World War.
Immediately after Friedrich Alfried Krupp's death, his widow built a huge new steel plant at Rheinhausen, on the left bank of the Rhine about twenty miles from Essen. The Krupp ceased to be purely a specialist in the manufacture of arms and special steel products and took its place in the front rank of the great German steel producers. The Germania shipyards hummed with activity as Krupp built a large part of the German high seas fleet. In 1906, Krupp built the first German submarine.
During the First World War, the Krupp firm, needless to say, was Germany's principal arsenal. It was no accident that, in 1916, when General Ludendorf asked two outstanding leaders of German industry to "join his train" to discuss war production, the two men invited were Gustav Krupp von Bohlen and Carl Duisberg of I.G. Farben. Guns, shells, and armour plate poured out of the Krupp factories. Warships and submarines were built, armed, and fitted at the Germania shipyards. Together with the other leading steel plants, Krupp supplied the finished and semi-finished steel for building, transport, and a variety of other industrial uses. The laboratory of war was an enormous stimulus to design and research. As a Krupp document tells us:
"The Armistice of 1918 found the Krupp artillery designing bureaus and the armament work shops at the peak of their efficiency and in full activity."
"As late as 8 November 1918, governmental orders had been placed and instructions had been given for the shipment of artillery equipment to the front.
In addition, numerous newly developed guns were being designed and in the course of being manufactured."
The Versailles Treaty The armistice which ended the First World War did not, surprisingly enough, end Krupp's armament activities completely.
Krupp continued to repair and recondition certain guns, and to complete the manufacture of new guns which were almost ready at the end of the war.
Krupp records show chat between the Armistice and July 1919, 238 guns were repaired, and 315 new guns were manufactured. Even after July 1919, the Krupp firm continued to work on one or two types of new guns until the arrival of the Interallied Control Commission at the Krupp plants in 1920.
In fact, Germany's defeat in the First World War, in and of itself, would probably not have radically affected Krupp's armament activities. But the disarmament provisions of the Treaty of Versailles were quite another matter. These provisions confronted the Krupp managers with a major question of policy: whether to convert the Krupp enterprises into a steel combine, similar to those in Germany and other countries, with its principal foundation in a peacetime economy, or whether to make special efforts to preserve Krupp's preeminent position in the armament field.
The Treaty of Versailles was signed on 28 June 1919. The provisions which were of special concern to Krupp, and are of special interest in this case, are those embodied in Part V entitled "Military, Naval, and Air Clauses". By Article 160 of the Treaty, the German army was limited to ten divisions consisting of not more than 100,000 men -- the so-called "100,000 men Reichswehr". Under the express language of Article 160, the exclusive purpose of the authorized German army was "the maintainence of order within the territory and the control of the frontiers." But the provision of most fundamental importance to Krupp was Article 168 relating to the manufacture of arms, which started in part:
"The manufacture of arms, munitions, or any war material, shall only be carried out in factories or works the location of which shall be communicated to and approved by the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, and the number of which they retain the right to restrict."
"Within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, all other establishments for the manufacture, preparation, storage or design of arms, munitions, or any war material whatsoever shall be closed down."
Later provisions of the Treaty are also of great importance. Article 170 prohibited the importation of arms and munitions into Germany, and at the same time forbade the manufacture of arms within Germany for export to foreign countries. Article 171 flatly prohibited the manufacture in Germany of tanks, armoured cars, and "all similar constructions suitable for use in war." Article 181 stringently limited the size of the German navy, and Article 190 specified the rate at which the authorized naval units could be replaced. Article 191 forbade Germany to construct or acquire any submarines whatsoever, even for commercial purposes.
The above and other comparable provisions of the Versailles Treaty were to be enforced by Allied Control Commissions.
Article 208 of the Treaty set forth that:
"The Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control will represent the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in dealing with the German Government in all matters concerning the execution of the military clauses."
"In particular it will be its duty to receive from the German Government the notifications relating to the location of the stocks and depots of munitions, the armament of the fortified, works, fortresses and forts which Germany is allowed to retain, and the location of the works or factories for the production of arms, munitions and war material and their operations."
"The Commission will take delivery of the arms, munitions and war material, will select the points where such delivery is to be effected, and will supervise the works of destruction, demolition, and of rendering things useless, which are to be carried out in accordance with the present Treaty."
"The German Government must furnish to the Military Inter Allied Commission of Control all such information and docu ments as the latter may deem necessary to ensure the complete execution of the military clauses, and in particular all legis lative and administrative documents and regulations."
Under Article 168 of the Treaty, the allied nations subsequently determined that Krupp should be the firm licensed for the production at Essen of guns with a caliber greater than 17 centimeters. No other type of armament manufacture was permitted to Krupp. Smaller guns were to be manufactured by the Rheinmetall plants at Duesseldorf; ammunition, and other weapons and war material, were licensed to still other firms. The lists so prescribed by the allies were accepted by the German government by its announcement of 15 July, 1921. In the meantime, the Military Inter-Allied Control Commission, headed by the French General Nollet, established itself in Berlin, and, on 29 May, 1920, representatives of the Commission, headed by the English Colonel Leverett, arrived at Essen, at the Krupp plant.
The establishment of the Control Commission and the arrival at the Krupp Essen plants of Colonel Leverett's group signalized the opening of a long and bitter struggle between the Control Commission on the one hand, and Krupp, secretly supported and encouraged by the German Government, on the other hand. And it is in this setting that the chain of circumstances and course of conduct charged as criminal in Count One really begins.
We have mentioned that the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and the implementation of these provisions through the InterAllied Commission of Control presented the Krupp managers with a very fundamental problem of policy relating to the future of the Krupp firm. None of the defendants in this case participated in the solution of this problem; ultimate authority to settle that question resided in Bertha Krupp and her husband, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen, who actually exercised the proprietary management. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen still survives, but is mentally and physically incapacitated. Three of the defendants in this case were associated with the Krupp firm at the time in question. The defendant Pfirsch was first employed by Krupp in 1902, and the defendants Janssen and Eberhardt joined just after the First World War, in 1918 and 1919, respectively. None of these three defendants occupied a sufficiently important position to justify charging him with responsibility for decisions taken before 1920, but all three of them, and others among the defendants, participated actively in events which flowed from and were a consequence of this early decision and which took place some time before the advent of Hitler's dictatorship.
In approaching this matter, we may well bear in mind that the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, whether wise or unwise, were legally binding within Germany. This was so not only as a matter of international law, but as a matter of German domestic law. A memorandum written in January 1927 by the Legal Division of the German Defense Ministry stated: I quote:
Furthermore, the Peace Treaty of Versailles is also a law of the Reich, and by reason of this it is binding on all members of the Reich at home.
This commitment ranks even superior to the provisions of the constitution of the German Reich since Article 178, paragraph 2, second sentence of this Constitution, provides that:
"The provisions of the Peace Treaty signed on 28 June 1919 in Versailles remain unaffected by the Constitution."
The members of the Reich government who participate in the preparations for mobilization of a Wehrmacht exceeding that sanctioned by the Treaty would make themselves guilty of an intra-state violation of the Peace Treaty promulgated as a Reich law, and, as a result of this, they could be indicted before the State judicial Court for culpable violation of their official duties under Article 59 of the Constitution at the behest of the Reichstag."
The same conclusion was reached in a memorandum written a few weeks later within the Armaments Office of the Reich War Ministry. This memorandum stated that "The Treaty of Versailles has been made valid as a law in Germany". These conclusions were reinforced when the German Reichstag enacted the "Law on Implements of War" on 27 July 1927.
The question which confronted the Krupp management as a result of the Versailles Treaty is vary well summarized in the report of the Direktorium of Krupp covering the year 1937-38; that is, the year in which the defendant Looser jointed the Krupp firm as a member of the Direktorium. The report in question states: I quote:
"With the and of the business year 1937/38, twenty years have passed since the World War.
Its unfortunate ending had fateful effects for us.
The "dictate" of Versailles prohibited us to manufacture armaments and army equipment almost completely and demanded the destruction of machines and installations necessary for their manufacture.
Under the supervision of the inter-allied control commission, approximately 10,000 machines, presses, furnaces, cranes and assembly shafts, over 800,000 gauges, die blocks, devices and special work tools, as well as the installations of the firing ranges in Essen and Meppen, were destroyed.
Our firm had to decide whether it wanted to renounce, for all time, the production of war material and continue the enterprise on the basis of the coal mines, the refined steel works in Essen and the foundry in Rheinhausen while discharging all superfluous workers and employees, or whether it would continue employing its personnel with a new production program and keep the shops operating with the pro duction of peacetime products."
The same report gives the answer to this problem, and sets forth the reasons for it:
"In spite of numerous doubts and contrary to the advice of outside experts, it, that, Krupp decided, as trustee of a historical inheritance, to safeguard the valuable experiences, irreplaceable for the armed strength of our nation, and through constant close ties with the works members to keep up the shops and personnel in readiness if the occasion should arise, for armament orders later on.
With this view in mind, we chose objects for the new program of manufacture on which the personnel could obtain and improve their experience in the processing and refining of material, even though the manufacture and sale of these products partly entailed bio losses.
The change-over was made more difficult by the occupation of the Ruhr and its effects.
But, after the inflation, the reserves built up by the very cautious evaluation of the property in the Goldmark balance, the proceeds from the coal mines, the Essen steel works and the foundry in Rheinhausen, as well as the renunciation of the payment of dividends, made it possible to overcome the diffi culties of this period of time so full of losses."
And,finally, Looser and the other Krupp directors were able to look back, after five years of the Hitler dictatorship and one year before the outbreak of the war against Poland, and view with immense satisfaction the decision taken in 1920: I quote:
"When, in 1933, we were again called upon to manufacture war material in large quantities, we were immediately ready to do so, and in addition, we were able to let other firms profit from our experiences, safeguarded and newly acquired by the use of our capital.
Workshops which had not been in operation for years or had only been operating on an insufficient scale were again put into operation, and after a short preliminary stage, were working at capacity.
Recognitions for holding out and rapidly going to work fill us with pride.
They prove that the sacrifices of the past safeguarded great values for our people.
"After having abandoned the production of all objects which were only meant to keep our personnel and our plants occupied, our production program today is a carefully balanced whole in which peace and war production are organically united."
The prosecution is not, therefore, indulging in empty chatter when it speaks of the importance of the Krupp tradition, and the light which Krupp history throws on later events. The same viewpoint is reflected in an article written by Gustav Krupp von Bohlen in 1941. After speaking of himself as "the trustee of an obligatory heritage", Gustav Krupp wrote:
"At the time (that is, 1919) the situation appeared almost hopeless.
At first, it appeared even more desperate if one was not-- as I was myself -- firmly convinced the Versailles did not mean a final conclusion.
Everything within me -- as within many other Germans -- revolted against the idea that the German people would remain enslaved forever.
I know German history only too well, and just out of my experiences in the rest of the world, I believed to know the German kind; therefore I never doubted that, although for the time being, all indications were against it -- one day a change would come.
How, I did not know, and also did not ask, but I believed in it.
With this knowledge however -- and today I may speak about these things and for the first time I an doing this extensively and publicly -- as responsible head of the Krupp works, consequences of the greatest importance had to be taken.
If Germany should ever be reborn, if it shouls shako off the chains of "Versailles" one day, the Kruppeconcern had to be prepared again.
The machines were destroyed, the tools were smashed, but the men remained; the men in the construction offices and the workshops who in happy cooperation had brought the construction of guns to its last perfection.
Their skill had to be maintained by all means, also their vast funds of knowledge and experience.
The decisions I had to make at that time were perhaps the most difficult ones in my life.
I wanted and had to maintain Krupp, in spite of all opposition, as an armament plant -- although for the distant future."
A further citation indicates that Krupp did not make this decision for patriotic reasons alone, or at least that he was anxious to be recompensed for the losses which the firm incurred as a result thereof. This observation is made in no spirit of criticism; certainly the desire to make a profit is far loss dangerous than the willingness to *---*m to the tooth the legions of a ruthless and aggressive dictator and launch upon the world a cataclysmic war. This next document was prepared by the Krupp firm in July 1940, and was transmitted to the High Command of the German Armed Forces; the details therein were prefaced by the following general observations: I quote:
"The following details .......are to provide the justifi cation for the increase in sales prices which the firm Krupp needs for its manufacture, as this increase in sales prices is the only meansby which Krupp is enabled to maintin the highest technical standard in its output.
......