Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal No. 6 in the matter of the United States of America against CARL KRAUCH et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 14 August 1947, 1000, Justice SHAKE presiding.
THE MARSHAL:The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal VI.
Military Tribunal No. 6 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT:Military Tribunal No. 6 will come to order.
The Tribunal will now proceed with the arraignment of the defendants in case number 6 pending before this Tribunal, The SecretaryGeneral will call the roll of the defendants.
THESECRETARY-GENERAL: Each defendant will stand and answer present when his name is called.
(The Secretary-General then called the roll of the defendants:
CARL KRAUCH, HERMANN SCHMITZ, GEORG VON SCHMTZLER, FRITZ GAJEMSKI,
HEINRICH HOERLEIN, AUGUST VON KNIERIEIEM, FRITZ TER MEER, CHRISTIAN
SCHNEIDER, OTTO AMBROS, MAX BRUEGEMANN -
BRIGADIER GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR:May it please your Honor, the Defendant Brueggemann is at present in a hospital near Duesseldorf in the British Zone of Occupation. Brueggemann was served with the indictment on 18 June 1947. Two days prior, on 16 June, Brueggemann's counsel, Dr. Klefisch, filed a letter in the nature of a motion with the Secretary-General asking that the proceedings against Brueggemann be temporarily quashed or separated from the trial of the other defendants and that Brueggemann be released from custody in the interest of his health. The prosecution answered this motion on 24 June and there appears to be no substantial conflict between the prosecution and the defense on this matter. Both the motion and the answer agree on the basis of the medical reports, that the defendant Brueggemann is not at present able to stand trial without serious danger to his life. The prosecution in its answer has suggested, in accordance with a procedure which the International Military Tribunal adopted in the case of Gustav Von Bohlen, that an order be made here postponing for an indefinite time the proceedings against Brueggeman but directing that the charges in the indictment be retained upon the docket of the Military Tribunals for trial thereafter, if the physical and mental condition of the defendant should permit.
The tribunal may of course, wish to have a further medical examination of Brueggenann before deciding this matter. So far as the prosecution is concerned we would have no objection to the entrance of an order severing the proceedings against Brueggemann at this time. In accordance with Dr. Kleflsch request, and on the basis of the medical reports, Brueggemann was released from the Nurnberg Jail on 7th July and, as I have said, he is presently hospitalized near Duesseldorf in the British zone, where he is under surveillance.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will pass upon that matter at the conclusion of the call of the defendants. You nay proceed, Mr. Secretary.
THESECRETARY-GENERAL: (Continuing):
ERNST BUERGIN, HEINRICH BUETEFISCH, PAUL HAEFLIGER,
MAX ILGENR, FRIEDRICH JAEHNE, HANS KUEHNE, CARL
LAUTENSCHLAEGER -
THE PRESIDENT:Is Counsel for the defendant present? Do you desire to make some observation to the court with reference to this defendant?
DR. PRIBILLA:No.
THE PRESIDENT:I may say to counsel that it has come to the attention of the Tribunal that the only son of this defendant passed away last night. I don't know whether the defendant himself yet knows of this fact, but under the circumstances we have excused him from attendance here this morning and we will dispose of his matter at the end of the roll-call also. You may proceed.
THESECRETARY-GENERAL: (Continuing):
WILHELM HANN, HEINRICH OSTER, KARL WURSTER -
BRIGADIER GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR:May it please the court, the defendant Wurster is at present in a hospital at Ludwigshafen in the French Zone of Occupation.
After the indictment of this case was filed, the prosecution learned, that the defendant Wurster had sustained an injury to his shoulder and that an operation had been performed and that Wurster was hospitalized in consequence thereof. According to the advice of the French doctors who treated Burster, it appeared that he could not be moved to Nurnberg at least for several weeks. Accordingly, arrangements were made to serve the indictment on the defendant Wurster at Ludwigshafen in the French Zone, and that was done by the Marshal of the Court on 20th of June 1947. Thereafter the defendant Burster was further affected by heart condition which further delayed his transfer to Nurnerg. Defense Counsel for Wurster, Dr. Wagner, has filed a motion requesting in the alternative that the defendant be discharged, or that the proceedings against him be severed from the proceedings against the other defendants. The prosecution filed an answer to this petition. On 24th of July 1947 to which Dr. Wagner filed a further reply on the 4th of August. The Defendant's motion and the answer are pending before the Tribunal for disposition and can be dealt with now or later in the discretion of the Tribunal. The prosecution has just received information that the Defendant Wurster was examined on 12 August 1947 by an American Military doctor and is advised that Burster could now be transported under proper physical safeguards to Numbers. The prosecution will, when the court hears this matter, oppose Dr. Wagner's request that the proceedings be severed although we, of course, have no objection to such further medical examinations as the court may direct.
THESECRETARY-GENERAL: (Continuing):
BALTER DUERRFELD, HEINRICH GATTINEAU, ERICH VON DER HEYDE
AND HANS KUGLER.)
May the Honorable Tribunal please, all defendants except Max Brueggemann, Carl Burster and Carl Lautenschlaeger are present and in the dock.
THE PRESIDENT:On the basis of the showings made, the arraignment of the Defendant Carl Lautenschlaeger will be postponed until the next session of the Tribunal.
The arraignment and trial of the defendants Brueggemann and Wurster will be postponed until such time as they are present or, in the alternative, until the further order of the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the charges against the defendants Brueggemann and Wurster will be continued and the indictments against them will not be dismissed, but their names may be omitted from the list of the defendants now before the Tribunal for trial.
The Secretary-General will now call the defendants in the dock, one by one, for arraignment.
THESECRETARY-GENERAL: Carl Krauch -
DR. CONRAD BOETTCHER:Mr. President, before this question is put to the defendants, I should like to have your permission, on behalf of all defense counsel and all defendants, to make a brief declaration with regard to this question.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
DR. CONRAD BOETTCHER:Your Honor, my name is Boettcher, Dr. Conrad Boettcher, attorney-at-law and defense counsel for the defendant Professor Dr. Krauch. At this time I am also speaking on behalf of all defense counsel present in this court room. At this point we must deal with two principal objections against these proceedings. The two points which I wish to deal with are these: I am first of all, objecting to this indictment as such since it does not correspond with the form prescribed in Ordinance Number 7. According to this Ordinance No. 7, paragraph 4, the indictment must make it plain to a sufficiently clear extent what charges are being preferred against individual defendants. This, however, is not the case, particularly since the legal concept of conspiracy -- at least as far as Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment are concerned, that is, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity has been declared not applicable. For that reason the prerequisites for this trial are not sufficiently in existence, namely, the question cannot at this point be put to the defendants whether they are guilty or not guilty.
Secondly, according to Ordinance No. 7, as well as according to the American constitution, the defendants have a claim for a fair trial. That is Article 5 of the American Constitution, and it is a claim which, according to the present defendants and considering the volume of the material, presents particularly great difficulties for the preparation for the defense, and which has, therefore, not been sufficiently realized.
My argument with regard to these two points is as follows:
With regard to one, as already stated at this point, proceedings cannot be continued because provisions contained in Article 4, of Ordinance No. 7, dealing with the prerequisites for such a trial at the beginning of the proceedings have not yet been fulfilled. Article 4 states in its first paragraph, sub-paragraph a, as follows:
"The indictment must specify clearly and simply the points of the indictment and must produce sufficient details in order to enable the defendants to be aware of the accusations and charges raised against him."
This is not met sufficiently in the indictment, neither as far as the evidence of conspiracy is concerned nor, as far was the formal participation is concerned, contained in Control Council Law No. 10 with regard to the first three points of the indictment. They are based upon the principal of individual participation, of course, although in the proceedings before the IMT the conspiracy was described as a particular form of participation under Anglo-Saxon law and, formed thus the basis of the indictment. The prosecution, at that time properly considered it essential to state in Appendix A of the indictment, with regard to every individual defendant, which points were applicable to his particular case and through which particular actions the individual perpetrations had been realized in his particular case.
As far as this present indictment here is concerned, the conspiracy, apart from Count 1 of the indictment has been dealt with by decisions of the Military Tribunals at Nurnberg on the basis of the en banc session of 9 July 1947, that is to say, after this present indictment was filed and the decision of that Tribunal was binding for every later Tribunal and, it was declared an independent charge, and in that manner was also declared as non-applicable as a point of indictment.
For that reason too the prosecution will have to go into infinitely greater detail than was necessary earlier, even as early as the filing of the written, indictment which concrete facts every individual of the 24 defendants are being charged with.
So long as this objection of mine, which I am discussing now, has not been dealt with, sufficient details are not available, which would have to be available according to Ordinance 7, in order to inform the individual defendants regarding the charges raised against them. And consequently the preconceived conditions for the entering into these proceedings, and which are essential for the defendants to allow them to answer the question of guilty or not guilty, are not met with.
I do not wish to be cause for a misunderstanding. All defendants do feel that they are not guilty. However, that would not effect our objection which is, that on the basis of the indictment in the form in which we have it here before us, the question of guilty or not guilty can not be put to them in the proper way at all. If the indictment with regard to individual counts produces very occasionally individual names, then it is not recognizable whether the charges are applicable to those defendants named in that connection and are to be restricted to them. In most cases any indication is lacking to the effect which one of the 24 defendants is to be charged with the individual count of the indictment.
Let me mention only two out of many examples, in order to eludicate the shortcomings which I am dealing with. I will quote from page 5 of the original indictment.
"All defendants through the IGFarben and otherwise, with diverse other persons, during a period of years proceeding the 8th of May 1945, participated in the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression and invasions of other countries" end of quotation.
I shall continue to quote from page 38 of the original of the indictment. "All defendants together with various other persons availed themselves during the time of the 12th of March 1938 up to the 8th of May 1945 of the facilities of the IG in order to commit War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity by participating in the looting of public and private property, its exploitation, spoliation, in other countries which came under the belligerent occupation of Germany in the course of its invasions and aggressive wars."
It is for this reason what the defense would request this Tribunal to declare the indictment as insufficient and non-admissable, at least, however , to request the prosecution to supply the necessary supplement for this indictment before the beginning of its case in chief, and after the submission of the completed indictment to allow a sufficient period to elapse in order to make a statement and prepare for this new indictment.
The documents handed over to the defense by the prosecution up to this point do not alleviate the mistakes in the indictment which I have just objected to, the violation of the rules contained in Article 4 of the Ordinance No. 7 can not be done away with by submission of such documents. Since the indictment as such is meant to contain those details, the submission of documents is a gesture on the part of the prosecution which lacks a proper meaning. The documents do not say anything about the participation of individual defendants, and have no relations to the major part of the defendants and, in connection with the indictment which we have up to now and which we consider incomplete, their meaning can not be grasped or understood.
I shall now turn to my argument with regard to point 2. It is the considered duty of the defense to point out again and again that the unfavorable circumstances prevailing in Germany at this time, which effect the defense much more than the prosecution, make it an impossibility in practice to work in a trial of such international significance as this and to balance the overpowering force of the prosecution.
The defense is aware of the fact that the Tribunal and the prosecution are not in a position either to correct the effects of these unusual circumstances, no more do we expect that the beginning of the trial could be postponed until these conditions have shown a, general improvement. The defense considers these unusual difficulties, however, to be additional handicaps which it is willing to bear in every instance considering the implicating circumstances. What, however, does not appear reasonable to the defense is that beyond this, the defense is burdened with restrictions which can be removed or through the refusal of favors which could be granted them. The most important factor is that of time, whereas the prosecution has had two years to collect and screen prosecution material and, had at its disposal a large organization over a period of years, the defense has only had very few, in fact, in some Cases only three to four weeks to exploit the possibilities of preparing the trial material after they were admitted before this Tribunal and, in particular contrary to the position of the prosecution, the defense has had utterly insufficient forces at their disposal.
The attornies designated as defense counsel have been prohibited from carrying out any type of activities before the Indictment was served on the defendants, although the defendants have been imprisoned now for years. It is correct to say, according to American law, the Prosecution does not have the duty of submitting to the defense, before the beginning of the Trial, all material used for its charges, but the defense would like to point out that due to the confiscation of the property of the I. G. the entire files of the I.G. Farbenindustrie were, first of all, not accessible and that only a few weeks ago did the defense counsel have free access to this material in the Document Center at Frankfurt. It is obvious that this documentary material can only be screened in extensive and hard work and only in that manner be exploited for the defense. What is of particular significance is the fact that, in spite of repeated applications, the defendants who are indicted as a group have not, up to now, had any possibility whatever to have joint conferences, availing themselves of the material which they had at their disposal in order to prepare themselves for their defense. They were not in a position to examine the procedure on which the Indictment is based and of which only one defendant knows the economic side, the other only the technical side, the third only the financial angle, and to discuss such matters jointly and to reconstruct in their minds, in part, the developments so that after such a statement they were in a position to judge the information dealing with the entire complex of material and hand it over to their defense counsel. Only when the defense is in possession of this information can it be in the position to put pertinent questions during cross examination to the witnesses called by the Prosecution. Considering the outstanding importance of cross examination before an Anglo-Saxon court it would not help the defense at all if between the submissions made by the Prosecution and those of the defense and adjournment were granted, such as the Prosecution refers to in its reply dated 18 July and which possibility the decision refusing the adjournment of the Tribunal, dated 30 July is referring to.
Apart from this, upon the decision of the acting Tribunal the letter of defense, dated 25 July, and the reply dated 30 July of Prosecution, deals with the statements of the Prosecution and has not been put before this Tribunal presumably for technical reasons. Consequently the decision of the acting Tribunal was handed down without the statements of the defense, which was made in reply to the statement of the Prosecution, being made known to the Tribunal. Defense does not wish to leave this Tribunal in doubt that postponement of the beginning of the trial alone would not alleviate the difficulties at hand. since gain in time would have to be connected with the granting of further applications made on behalf of the defense, which deal with the creation of proper external prerequisites for these proceedings. No doubt, in the meantime, the high Tribunal will have received applications in question. They deal with the question of obtaining legal evidence and material from abroad. They deal with the admission of further German and Foreign defense counsels and auxiliary forces. They deal with the creation of a considerably larger financial basis, and for payment of defense, and deal with granting of at least the most simple assistance of a technical nature, such as for instance, the availability of sufficient work rooms in the building, typewriters, the possibilities to put through telephone calls and similar points.
It is utterly insufficient, for the work to be done on such a voluminous complicated trial material, if a defendant has only two lawyers. That is to say one chief defense counsel and one assistant at his disposal who are helped by one single secretary. Further, intolerable conditions arise from the fact that defense counsel of various defendants are forced to work together in one room, as is the case at this time, whereas individual defence counsel have no office of their own at all. A further impediment which can not probably be understood by anyone who has not experienced it himself, are the Case I, case 6 difficulties which we meet in connection with frequent journies which are necessary to locate witnesses and documents.
The defense have no motor cars and have not sufficient gasoling. Journies made by train, due to to catastrophic traffic conditions, are an unusual waste of time and are unusually exhausting. Let me draw your attention to the particular difficulties which now arise, and which in this form did not arise in any other of the trials which have been in progress in Nurnberg up to now. The extent of the International business activities of the I. G. Farbenindustrie, which to a considerable extent has been made the subject of this indictment, necessitates extensive contacts of the defense with sources abroad, if the subject is to be properly cleared up. It is impossible to use correspondence or even to use defense counsels who are not familiar with the material to alleviate these points in the foreign countries councerned. In fact, they can only be handled by the defense counsel themselves with a reasonable chance of success, particularly since the secrecy of the defense cannot be observed properly due to conditions of censorship if correspondence were solely chosen. The difficulties which would entail if journies abroad were made due to the condition Germany now finds herself are known to the denfens. The defense fells it necessary to draw your attention to that fact that without a satisfactory solution to these questions a fair defense will not be possible.
Independently and apart from the principle request for an adjuornment which are connected with this motion are those which we handed in on S July, 30 July and 7 August 1947. All further motions which were made in connection with these are repeated and an early decision of the Tribunal is requested. They can be summarized as follows:
A request for adjournment of the beginning of the trial for 6 months, for the purpose of more efficient presentation on the part of defense.
Request that the Office of the Secretary General and the Prosecution be instructed that a sufficient and properly conducted defense be arranged.
It may appear to be somewhat mean that those technical matters are contained in an application of the defense playing such a big part, but it is necessary to understand how difficult and unpleasant and hopeless a task and bettle with difficulties is presented by dialy life. It is necessary to see them from a close distance in order to feel our depression which we register concerning the magnitude of our task which we have to perform subject to insufficient mans which we need for its completion.
The defense, therefore, begs this Tribunal in relizing when deal-in with their applications to be aware of the fact that for the first time in history the heads of an International industrial large enterprise are under Indictment, the scientific accomplishments of which, and the economic solidarity of which, and the international attitude of which, has been recognised the world over, and that the accusations are raised which in every respect are appalling. The defendants themselves are keenly interested to prove before the public of the world that these charges are unjustifiable. They request no more than fairness with regard to the preparation and development of these proceedings the granting of which the countries who uphold Anglo-Saxon legal traditions are so particularly proud of. There can be no doubt whatever that this trial is destined to write history and to clear up the question how in the future leading industrialists of a country should conduct themselves in the event of an international conflagration. This judgment can only, however, make history if it can live up to the scrutiny of the historians. That is the basis, and nothing else, for this motion of the defense. The defense cannot see that these two principal motions made with regard to this trial, namely, with reference to the incompleteness of the Indictment and insufficent possibility of preparation on the part Case I, case 6 of the defense, cannot exhaust the objections on principle which have been raised to this trial in its entirety.
When the time comes the defense will point out that in this instance proceedings are carried on before an American Tribunal which must be carried out within the frame work of the American Constitution. The American Constitution contains an explicit prohibition that actions should be subject of criminal proceedings for which at the point when they were committed no penal cede had been in existance. Defense feels that they may not assume that the American democracy would depart from the ideal principles which it has represented the world over and for which it is attempting to gain the support of that same German people (just with regard to members of this nations Germany.)
The defense trust that the American Tribunals, right to the very head will see to it that this practice which has its basis in the American Prosecution should be applied forthwith.
May I make one remark of a technical nature. A written translation of this motion of mine will be submitted to this Tribunal in the near future and the Prosecution as well. It is already on its way to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT:This Tribunal, which was only recently constituted, has been laboring under the impression that a motion for the continuance of this cause had been ruled upon by the presiding Judges of the Tribunal before this body was organized. If there has been filed any additional motion for continuance this Tribunal has no knowledge of it and would like to inquire of counsel for defense who has just spoken if any such motion as been filed and called to the attention of the Prosecution.
DR. BOETTCHER:That isn't an application, Mr. President. It is a statement of objections on the part of the defense against the beginning of the trial based upon the incompleteness of the Indictment and the insufficient time for defense to prepare their work.
THE PRESIDENT:Counsel for Prosecution can be heard on this motion.
GENERAL TAYLOR:Your Honors, I would like to make very briefly three points, in no more than four minutes.
I believe that not one word that Dr. Boettcher has spoken is germane to the only matter now pending before the Tribunal, which is whether these defendants are to be called upon to plead guilty or innocent. Dr. Boettcher rose apparently to address himself to that question but I believe he failed to do so utterly. He hasn't suggested that any of the defendants would plead innocent, would plead guilty, if the Indictment were changed or if conditions were different. In fact, he has made it quite apparent that the defendants understand the Indictment and are about to plead not guilty. It seems to ma a pity that that matter has been postponed so long.
As to the second point Dr. Boettcher has spoken at length with respect to the insufficiency of the Indictment. He such motion has come to the attention of the Prosecution, or I take it of the Tribunal. And, in answer to the Tribunal's last question it appears to me that Dr. Boettcher has not intended to make any motion but merely to make what I can only describe as an opening or closing statement somewhat prematurely and has not intended it as a motion at all. The Indictment in general Is far more particular than the Indictments that have been filed in other cases here. I think the differences which Dr. Boettcher has intended to point out are without foundation but I don't, unless the Court desires, propose to argue this matter at length now. It seems to me such questions should be raised by properly written motion and disposed of in orderly fashion. The Indictment, I might add, has been supplemented by some 700 documents which the Prosecution has voluntarily placed at the disposal of the defense and if Dr. Boettcher is able to state those documents do not mention the defendants or in what ways they are implicated I can only suggest that he has not read the documents made available to him.
As to the observation about conditions in Germany and as to the fairness of the trial once again all those are matters which can be raised by appropriate motion and isposed of in an orderly fashion. And, it seems to me, have no place at this time.
Counsel for defense, many them served here in other cases, and I think are entirely aware of that, I think that is all I have to say at this time, your Honor.
DR. SIEMERS:Your Honors, Dr. Siemers defense counsel for Dr. Erich von Schnitzler. Your Honors, with regard to the statement just made by General Taylor I should like first of all to say as a matter of principle that we are not here concerned with an application or motion which General Taylor says is lacking, but with an objection against the Indictment and the permissible objection as admissilbe in Angl_Saxon law. Dr. Boettcher has already declared that in our opinion the Indictment formally speaking does not conform with the instructions contained in Ordinance 7. In rebuttal hereto General Taylor has pointed out that the Indictment in this trial is a more exact and more detailed than were the Indictments in other trials. Your Honors, I am not in a position at this point to check all the trials conducted in Nurnberg. I personally have a clear picture of the trial before the IMT and the trial which is running parallel to this one here, the Flick case.
I contradict and oppose General Taylor's statement that the indictment in this trial is more exact. Dr. Boettcher has already pointed out to you that in the trial before the IMT the Indictment contained an Appendix A submitted by the Prosecution in order to establish a relation between the offenses committed, and the individual defendants. That is a matter wich is not contained in this Indictment before this Tribunal, In fact, your Honors, it transpired at a later stage than the Indictment in the big trial which was still not sufficiently complete, a fact which was generally recognized and it was for that reason that the Prosecution later submitted special trial briefs with regard to each individual defendant.
If an explicitness of this indictment is to be mentioned at all then it is only in connection with Point I of the indictment, which is the so-called planning on the part of I. G. for the conducting of agressive wars. I might mention that I consider the statements under Point I not sufficient. At any rate they must give some sort of a general picture. In all the other points the indictment is so inexact that, even with the best of a will and desire, you cannot speak of a specification of the individual parts of the indictment.
I beg the Tribunal to give me permission to draw its attention to a few outstanding points of the indictment which will prove, without delay, the correctness of my statement.
On Page 73 of the German text of the indictment, Figure 121 of the Indictment, we find the heading: Participation of the Defendants in Slavery and Mass Murder." Such a colossal charge is dealt with in a few pages. On Page 74, Figure 124, it is said with reference to the subject, and I quote: "The exploitation of enslaved workers and of prisoners of war for work directly connected with war operations was standard policy of FARBEN." End of my quotation. In the whole of the indictment there isn't one single word, not one single fact to be found which would give the reasons for this sentence. It is never said how the exploitation is carried out, and it is never said where the exploitation is carried out, and there is no mention of a single individual fact, and not one individual name from amongst the defendants is mentioned.
On Page 78 of the German text of the indictment, under Figure 128, it says, and I quote:
"In all FARBEN plants and works, where slave labor was used, sub-human standards of living were the established order.
Inadequate food rations, overcrowded and filthy sleeping quarters, excessive hours of hard physical labor, continued beatings and other cruel disciplinary measures, brought about a high percent age of illness and disease among the inmates.
In cases of disease, little or no medical care was furnished, as a result of which many slave laborers died."
Your Honor, as Ordinance No. VII stated expressly that it is desirable and essential that details should be given, so that the defendant can inform himself of the details regarding the perpetrations with which he is charged, then I would like to ask the Prosecution, just how can the defendant, or defense counsel, inform himself and make the facts clear to himself in this connection? Once again the I. G. Farben is only generally mentioned, which supposedly isn't under indictment in its entirety as a body. Generally all works and factories are talked about, although we know that there are hundreds of them, and although we know that there were hundreds of camps. In spite of all that, not one single name of any camp is mentioned. If that is supposed to be a specification, then I, both legally and economically, have never yet up to now understood the meaning of the word "specification."
May I now turn to Figure 131 of the indictment, that is Page 80 of the German text, and I quotes:
"Use of poison gas and medical experimentation on enslaved persons.
Poison gases and various deadly pharmaceuticals manu factured by FARBEN and supplied by FARBEN to officials of the SS were used in experimentation upon and the extermination of en slaved persons in concentration camps throughout Europe.
Experi ments on human beings (including concentration camp inmates,) without their consent, were conducted by FARBEN to determine the effect of deadly gases, vaccines, and related products."
Your Honors, one of the most horrible charges, the most farreaching charges, namely that of planned murder of every sort, that is an accusation which the Prosecution dares to render in nine lines of the text of the indictment, and without mentioning any further details and, they dare to assort that its duty of specification under Article IV of Ordinance No. 7, complied with. There is no mention as to which one of the defendants is supposed to have participated.
It has never said where these supplies went, to which officers of the SS.
Quite generally "enslavement" and "extermination" is used. It is the typical purely propaganda material, by means of which the defendants are linked with sad and regrettable criminal acts, which the German Regime under Hitler was guilty of. I deny the right on the part of the Prosecution to make statements of this nature in such general terms. We, since they are of material importance legally, shall deal with these points at a later stage.
We are here only concerned with the question of procedure, and then it will have to be granted that this individual charge is not specifically treated.
May I, in this connection, supplement my statement by saying that the ruling contained in Article IV, specifically started with the words, and I quote: "For the purpose of the preservation of the privileges of the defendants, this and that type of procedure is to be adopted." We are concerned with the ruling on procedure which is to preserve the privileges of the defendants. Consequently, the Prosecution must take upon themselves the trouble of complying with the details demanded in this Article.
The Ordinance No. VII arose from the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. It might be interesting, therefore, to re-establish this link, and I might draw your attention to the fact that in Article 16 of this Charter of the International Military Tribunal, you will find the following sentence: "The indictment is to contain all details from which the facts of guilt can be ascertained."
Your Honor, the very same picture, which was the basis of the big trial, applies to this no doubt equally big I. G. trial.
Finally, may I draw your attention to Figure 146 of the indictment, which is Count V of the Indictment. In Count V, as before, the conspiracy is charged as an independent crime. It appears doubtful to me whether this is possible. We might leave this question open for the moment.