dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
plants for certain lines of production .... Even the Allied snoop commissioners were duped .... After the accession to power of Adolf Hitler, I had the satisfaction of reporting to the Fuehrer that Krupp stood ready, after a short warming-up period, to begin rearmament of the German people without any gaps of experience ...."
Krupp von Bohlen (and Alfried Krupp as well) lent his name, prestige and financial support to bring the Nazi Party, with an avowed program of renewing the war, into power over the German State. On 25 April 1931 Von Bohlen acted as chairman of the Association of German Industry to bring it into line with Nazi policies. On 30 May 1933 he wrote to Schacht that:
"It is proposed to initiate a collection in the most far reaching circles of German Industry, including agriculture and the banking world, which is to be put at the disposal of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP in the name of 'The Hitler Fund' .... I have accepted the chairmanship of the management council."
Krupp contributed from the treasury of the main Krupp company 4,738,446 marks to the Nazi Party fund. In June 1935 he contributed 100,000 marks to the Nazi Party out of his personal account.
The Nazi Party did not succeed in obtaining control of Germany until it obtained support of the industrial interests, largely through the influence of Krupp. Alfried first became a Nazi Party member and later Von Bohlen did also. The Krupp influence was powerful in promoting the Nazi plan to incite aggressive warfare in Europe.
Krupp von Bohlen strongly advocated and supported Germany's withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and from the League of Nations. He personally made repeated public speeches approving and inciting Hitler's program of aggression: On 6 and 7 April 1938 two speeches approved annexation of Austria; on 13 October 1938 approving Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland; on 4 September 1939 approving the invasion of Poland; on 6 May 1941 commemorating success of Nazi arms in the West.
inciting Hitler's program of aggression: On 6 and 7 April 1938 two speeches approved annexation of Austria; on 13 October 1938 approving Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland; on 4 September 1939 approving the invasion of Poland; on 6 May 1941 commemorating success of Nazi arms in the West.
Alfried Krupp also made speeches to the same general effect. Krupps were thus one of the most persistent and influential forces that made this war.
Krupps also were the chief factor in getting ready for the war. In January 1944, in a speech at the University of Berlin, Von Bohlen boasted, "Through years of secret work, scientific and basic groundwork was laid in order to be ready again to work for the German Armed Forces at the appointed hour without loss of time or experience." In 1937, before Germany went to war, Krupps booked orders to equip satellite governments on approval of the German High Command. Krupp contributed 20,000 marks to the Defendant Rosenberg for the purpose of spreading Nazi propaganda abroad. In a memorandum of 12 October 1939 a Krupp official wrote offering to mail propaganda pamphlets abroad at Krupp expense.
Once the war was on, Krupps, both Von Bohlen and Alfried being directly responsible therefor, led German industry in violating treaties and international law by employing enslaved laborers, impressed and imported from nearly every country occupied by Germany, and by compelling prisoners of war to make arms and munitions for use against their own countries. There is ample evidence that in Krupp's custody and service they were underfed and overworked, misused, and inhumanly treated. Captured records show that in September 1944 Krupp concerns were working 54,990 foreign workers and 18,902 prisoners of war.
of war to make arms and munitions for use against their own countries. There is ample evidence that in Krupp's custody and service they were underfed and overworked, misused, and inhumanly treated. Captured records show that in September 1944 Krupp concerns were working 54,990 foreign workers and 18,902 prisoners of war.
Moreover, the Krupp companies profited greatly from destroying the peace of the world through support of the Nazi program. The rearmament of Germany gave Krupp huge orders and corresponding profits. Before this Nazi menace to the peace began, the Krupps were operating at a substantial loss. But the net profits after taxes, gifts, and reserves steadily rose with rise of Nazi rearmament, being as follows:
For year ending 30 September 1935
57,216,392 marks
For year ending 30 September 1938
97,071,632 marks
For year ending 30 September 1941
111,555,216 marks
The book value of the Krupp concerns mounted from 75,962,000 marks on 1 October 1933, to 237,316,093 marks on l October 1943. Even this included many going concerns in occupied countries at a book value of only 1 mark. each. These figures are subject to the adjustments and controversies usual with financial statements of each vast enterprise but approximately reflect the facts about property and operations.
marks on l October 1943. Even this included many going concerns in occupied countries at a book value of only 1 mark. each. These figures are subject to the adjustments and controversies usual with financial statements of each vast enterprise but approximately reflect the facts about property and operations.
The services of Alfried Krupp and of Von Bohlen and their family to the war aims of the Nazi Party were so outstanding that the Krupp enterprises were made a special exception to the policy of nationalization of industries. Hitler said that he would be "prepared to arrange for any possible safeguarding for the continued existence of the works as a family enterprise; it would be simplest to issue 'lex Krupp' to start with". After short negotiations, this was done. A decree of 12 November 1943 preserves the Krupp works as a family enterprise in Alfried Krupp's control and recites that it is done in recognition of the fact that "for 132 years the firm of Fried. Krupp, as a family enterprise has achieved outstanding and unique merits for the armed strength of the German people."
It has at all times been the position of the United States that the great industrialists of Germany were guilty of the crimes charged in this
Indictment
quite as much as its politicians, diplomats, and soldiers. Its chief of counsel, on 7 June 1945, in a report to President Truman, released by him and with his approval, stated that the accusations of crimes include individuals in authority in the financial, industrial, and economic life of Germany as well as others.
as its politicians, diplomats, and soldiers. Its chief of counsel, on 7 June 1945, in a report to President Truman, released by him and with his approval, stated that the accusations of crimes include individuals in authority in the financial, industrial, and economic life of Germany as well as others.
Pursuant thereto, the United States, with approval of the Secretary of State, proposed to indict Alfried Krupp, son of Krupp von Bohlen, and president and owner of the Krupp concern. The Prosecutors representing the Soviet Union, the French Republic, and the United Kingdom unanimously opposed inclusion of Alfried Krupp. This is not said in criticism of them or their judgment. The necessity of limiting the number of defendants was considered by representatives of the other three nations to preclude the addition of Alfried Krupp.
Immediately
upon service of the
Indictment
, learning the serious condition of Krupp von Bohlen, the United States again called a meeting of Prosecutors and proposed an amendment to include Alfried Krupp. Again the proposal of the United States was defeated by a vote of 3 to 1. If now the Tribunal shall exercise its discretion to excuse from trial the one indicted member of the Krupp family, one of the chief purposes of the United States will be defeated and it is submitted that such a result is not "in the interests of justice."
The United States respectfully submits that no greater disservice to the future peace of the world could be done than to excuse the entire Krupp family and the armament enterprise from this Trial in which aggressive war making is sought to be condemned. The "interests of justice" cannot be determined without taking into account justice to the men of four generations whose lives have been taken or menaced by Krupp munitions and Krupp armament, and those of the future who can feel no safety if such persons as this escape all condemnation in proceedings such as this.
The "interests of justice" cannot be determined without taking into account justice to the men of four generations whose lives have been taken or menaced by Krupp munitions and Krupp armament, and those of the future who can feel no safety if such persons as this escape all condemnation in proceedings such as this.
While of course the United States cannot, without the concurrence of one other Power indict a new defendant, it can under the
Charter
alone oppose this motion. The United States respectfully urges that if the favor now sought by Krupp von Bohlen is to be granted, it be upon the condition that Alfried Krupp be substituted or added as a defendant so that there may be a representative of the Krupp interests before the Tribunal.
It may be suggested that bringing in a new defendant would result in delay. Admitting, however, that a delay which cannot exceed a few days may be occasioned, it is respectfully suggested that the precise day that this Trial will start is a less important consideration than whether it is to fail of one of its principal purposes. The American Prosecution staff has been by long odds the longest and farthest away from home in this endeavor. On personal as well as public interest consideration it deplores delay. But we think the future as well as the contemporary world cannot fail to be shocked if, in a trial in which it is sought to condemn aggressive war making, the Krupp industrial empire is completely saved from condemnation.
The complete trial brief of the United States on Krupp von Bohlen with copies of the documents on which his culpability is asserted will be made available to the Tribunal if it is desired as evidence concerning him and Alfried Krupp and the Krupp concerns.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON
Chief of Counsel for the
United States of America
12 November 1945
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1 : Memorandum of the British Prosecution
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
MEMORANDUM OF THE BRITISH PROSECUTION
ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN
British War Crimes Executive (E.S.)
12 November 1945
To: The International Military Tribunal.
The British Chief Prosecutor has had the opportunity of considering the application of the Defending Counsel to the accused
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH
:
1)
that the proceedings against this accused be deferred until he is again fit for trial;
2)
at any rate, that the accused be not tried in his absence.
The British Chief Prosecutor opposes this application for the following reasons:
i)
The
medical position
is that as far as can be foreseen the said defendant will never again be fit for trial, and therefore if he is not tried in his absence, he will not be tried at all.
ii)
Although in an ordinary case it is undesirable that a defendant should be tried when he is unable to comprehend the charges made against him, or to give instruction for his defence, there are special considerations which apply to this case and make it essential for the Defendant Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach to be tried in his absence.
iii)
As this is a case of conspiracy, the British Prosecutor submits that all the evidence directly concerned with the actions and speeches of the said defendant and the operations of Fried. Krupp A.G
and make it essential for the Defendant Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach to be tried in his absence. iii) As this is a case of conspiracy, the British Prosecutor submits that all the evidence directly concerned with the actions and speeches of the said defendant and the operations of Fried. Krupp A.G. would be evidence against the remaining defendants, if the Prosecution establishes a prima facie case:
a)
that the conspiracy existed;
b)
that the said defendant was a party to the conspiracy.
Such prima facie case is clearly indicated in the
Indictment
lodged with the Tribunal and the evidence against the present defendant set out in the
American Answer to this Application
.
iv)
If this submission of the British Chief Prosecutor is correct and this evidence can and will be given in Court, then it is at least arguable that it is preferable for the said defendant to be represented so that his lawyer can deal with such evidence to the best of his ability.
v)
It is a matter of common knowledge of which the Court may take cognisance that the business of Fried. Krupp A.G. is a vast organisation. There are, therefore, many sources within the Krupp firm from which the defending Advocate can obtain information which will enable him to deal with the allegations contained in the
American Answer
. If the Defendant Gustav Krupp is not retained in the list of defendants, there will be no advocate so well qualified to deal with those allegations on behalf of the other defendants against whom they will still be preferred.
vi)
In the circumstances of this trial the kernel of the case for the prosecution is that a number of conspirators have agreed and worked together for the purpose of waging aggressive war and causing untold misery to the World
allegations on behalf of the other defendants against whom they will still be preferred. vi) In the circumstances of this trial the kernel of the case for the prosecution is that a number of conspirators have agreed and worked together for the purpose of waging aggressive war and causing untold misery to the World. The public interest, that the defendant who is responsible for the preparation of armaments on the one hand, and the utilisation on arms production, of prisoners of war and forced labour, including detainees from Concentration Camps on the other, is one of "the interests of justice" within
Article 12 of the Charter
.
vii
) Finally, it is earnestly desired that the wishes of the Tribunal as publicly announced at
Berlin on the 18th October
that the trial should open on the appointed day, namely, 20th November be realised and carried into execution. The British Delegation is strongly opposed to any postponement.
/ s / HARTLEY SHAWCROSS
British Chief Prosecutor
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1 : Memorandum of the French Prosecution
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
MEMORANDUM OF THE FRENCH PROSECUTION
ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN
Nuremberg, 13 November 1945
MEMORANDUM
by the French Delegation concerning the matter of Krupp which was discussed at the meeting of 12 November 1945
France is formally opposed to dropping the firm of Krupp, from the Trial since the other prosecutors do not contemplate the possibility of preparing at this time a second trial directed against the big German industrialists.
France objects therefore to a simple severance.
The remaining possibilities are either the trial of Krupp Sr. in absentia or the substitution of Krupp Jr. in his father's place and stead.
The trial of an old man who is about to die and who is not before the Court is difficult in itself.
France would prefer to substitute his son against whom there are serious charges.
For simple reasons of expediency, France requests that there be no delay in excess of the delay that will result in all probability from the motions of the Defense.
If the Tribunal denies these motions of the Defense, the Trial of Krupp Sr. should take place in his absence.
However this is in our opinion the lesser of two evils.
/ s / DUBOST
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1 : Supplemental Memorandum of the French Prosecution
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF THE FRENCH PROSECUTION
Nuremberg, 14 November 1945
ADDITIONAL MEMORANDUM
We consider the trial of KRUPP, the father, as impossible under the circumstances. The trial of an old, dying man, absent from the dock, cannot take place.
We wish that the son be prosecuted. There are serious charges against him.
We had requested, so far, that he be prosecuted without any delay arising in the Trial therefrom.
The reasons of opportunity which had induced us to adopt this attitude are no longer so imperative since the Soviet Delegation has concurred in Mr. Jackson's thesis.
Consequently we no longer raise any objection and we concur ourselves in this thesis.
The Deputy-Delegate of
The French Government
in the Prosecution of
The International Military Tribunal
/s/ CH. DUBOST
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1 : Order of the Tribunal Granting Postponement
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL GRANTING
POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
- against -
HERMANN WILHELM GOERING, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION
of the application of counsel for the defendant, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen, for a postponement of the proceedings against him;
IT IS ORDERED
that the application for postponement be, and the same hereby is, granted;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that the charges in the
indictment
against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen shall be retained upon the docket of the Tribunal for trial hereafter, if the physical and mental condition of the defendant should permit.
BY THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
/ s / GEOFFREY LAWRENCE
President.
Dated this 15th day
of November, 1945.
ATTEST: / s / WILLIAM L. MITCHELL
General Secretary.
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1 : Supplementary Statement of the U.S. Prosecution
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES PROSECUTION
MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE UNITED STATES CHIEF OF COUNSEL TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
The United States, by its Chief of Counsel, respectfully shows:
The
order of the Tribunal
, that "The charges in the Indictment against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen shall be retained upon the docket of the Tribunal for trial hereafter, if the physical and mental condition of the defendant should permit," requires the United States to make clear its attitude toward subsequent trials, which may have been misapprehended by the Tribunal, in order that no inference be drawn from its silence.
The United States never has committed itself to participate in any Four Power trial except the one now pending. The purpose of accusing organizations and groups as criminal was to reach, through subsequent and more expeditious trials before Military Government or military courts, a large number of persons. According to estimates of the United States Army, a finding that the organizations presently accused are criminal organizations would result in the trial of approximately 130,000 persons now held in the custody of the United States Army; and I am uninformed as to those held by others. It has been the great purpose of the United States from the beginning to bring into this one trial all that is necessary by way of defendants and evidence to reach the large number of persons responsible for the crimes charged without going over the entire evidence again. We, therefore, desire that it be a matter of record that the United States has not been, and is not by this order, committed to participate in any subsequent Four Power trial. It reserves freedom to determine that question after the capacity to handle one trial under difficult conditions has been tested.
Respectfully submitted:
/ s / ROBERT H
matter of record that the United States has not been, and is not by this order, committed to participate in any subsequent Four Power trial. It reserves freedom to determine that question after the capacity to handle one trial under difficult conditions has been tested. Respectfully submitted: / s / ROBERT H. JACKSON
Chief of Counsel for the United States
Certified a true copy:
/ s/ R. L. MORGAN
Major, GSC
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1 : Motion of the Committee of Chief Prosecutors
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
MOTION OF THE COMMITTEE OF CHIEF
PROSECUTORS TO AMEND THE INDICTMENT
BY ADDING THE NAME OF
ALFRIED KRUPP VON BOHLEN AS A DEFENDANT
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
- against -
HERMANN WILHELM GOERING, et al.,
Defendants.
TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL:
Upon the
Indictment
and
motion
of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, the answers thereto and all proceedings had therein, the Committee of Prosecutors created under the
Charter
hereby designates Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach as a defendant and. respectfully moves that the
Indictment
be amended by adding the name of Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach as a defendant and by the addition of appropriate allegations in reference to him in the
Appendix A
thereof. It also moves that the time of Alfried Krupp be shortened from thirty days to 2 December 1945. For this purpose, the Committee of Prosecutors adopts and ratifies the
Answer filed on behalf of the United States
on 12 November 1945 in response to the Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach motion, and the motion made by Robert H. Jackson in open Court on behalf of the United States of America, the Soviet Union and the Provisional Government of France. This motion is authorized by a resolution adopted at a meeting of the Committee of Prosecutors held 16 November 1945.
/ s / POKROVSKY
For the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
/ s / F. DE MENTHON
For the Provisional Government of France
/ s / ROBERT H. JACKSON
For the United States of America
16 November 1945
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REJECTING THE
MOTION TO AMEND THE INDICTMENT BY
ADDING THE NAME OF ALFRIED KRUPP
VON BOHLEN AS A DEFENDANT
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
- against -
HERMANN WILHELM GOERING, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION
of the
motion
to amend the
indictment
by adding the name of Alfried Krupp;
IT IS ORDERED
that the
motion
be, and the same hereby is, rejected.
BY THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
/ s / GEOFFREY LAWRENCE
President.
Dated this 17th day of November, 1945.
ATTEST:
/ s / WILLIAM L. MITCHELL
General Secretary
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
MEMORANDUM OF THE FRENCH PROSECUTION
ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
REJECTING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE
INDICTMENT
Prosecution
International Military Tribunal
FRENCH DELEGATION
Annex 13
The Delegate of the Provisional
Government of the French Republic
of the Prosecution to the
International Military Tribunal
to
The Members of the International
Military Tribunal
Nuremberg, 20 November 1945
I have the honor to inform you that the
decision rendered by you on 17 November at 1500 hours
, to reject the
motion
signed the 16th by Mr. Justice JACKSON, Colonel POKROVSKY and M