In administrative matters, routine matters, I think I do recall saying that I assume that you all tell us the truth unless it is challenged, but that is no rule with respect to the introduction of evidence.
MR. SPRECHER:Actually, it was intended to be a reply to only what Dr. Siemers had Said because I am quite content with the excerpts which Dr. Siemers has put in.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
DR. SIEMERSLMr. President, I hope I haven't made a mistake, but I thought, judging by the previous ruling, that it was permissible with respect to records or other documents to offer only excerpts, the ones that are significant for me.
THE PRESIDENTLThat is correct. That is right.
DR. SIEMERS:Then I offer Document 202 as Exhibit 29. It is an excerpt from the Judgment of Military Tribunal I in Case 8, 10 March 1948.
THE PRESIDENT:That is marked for identification only because it is the kind of a document that the Tribunal would judicially notice.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, may I merely ask you to put a question mark beside the index?
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
DR. SIEMERS:The next document, #27 I offer as Exhibit 30. This is an affidavit of Mrs. von Schnitzler. I need not quote from it. I should merely like to make one remark in view of the session of 28 August and 2 September.
I Was not permitted to bring out at the time the question of pressure in 1945, and I did not offer any evidence. But I do believe that it is of a certain interest to show what conditions were at the time, and therefore I want to offer this document which does not concern my client but concerns Mrs. von Schnitzler, her arrest while she was visiting her husband by a member of the American occupying forces, Mr. Sachs, who was at that time calling himself Troubetzki.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, we think that is an affidavit of the socalled "smear" variety and we make an objection to it. The fact that Mrs. von Schnitzler claims to have been searched in a rather undignified way after she had hidden something in her blouse, we think, is a long way from having any relevancy to any question in this case whatsoever.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, now, the Prosecution is correct in this regard. This Tribunal, as such, of course, is not concerned with respect to any improper treatment that was accorded the wife of the defendant. The only way that this would be material from our standpoint would be whether or not the incidents recited in the affidavit took place in the presence of the defendant or whether he knew of the incident at the time or before he was interrogated. If it occurred in his presence, of if he had information later that this had occurred, it might be a circumstance to be taken into account and consideration as to whether or not he was under any duress or coercion at the time he was interrogated. On the affidavit as it stands, the Tribunal would necessarily be required to reject it. But if you desire to make any supplemental proof with respect to it to the effect that the defendant had knowledge of those facts at the time he was interrogated, then the treatment accorded a member of his family, especially the relationship of a wife to a husband, is a circumstance that might throw some light upon whether or not he was under undue pressure and influence at the time he was interrogated by the American representatives.
Is that clear to you, Dr. Siemers?
As matters now stand, we will mark that document for identification, which under the ruling as indicated by Judge Morris means that it is not before the Tribunal for any purpose except that it is preserved in the Secretary's office, and if you desire to offer any additional evidence that will connect it with this defendant in this case, you may do so.
DR. SIEMERS:Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:And then, if you do that, you should re-offer the document so that it will get in evidence. It is just preserved for you here until you can determine whether or not you can make proper use of it.
DR. SIEMERS:I understand.
The next document, No. 28, I offer as Exhibit 31. It is an affidavit of Willy Pleines concerning Farben exports in the field of dyestuffs in 1938. In circumstantial evidence only indirect evidence is possible forme, since I must give negative proof. I want to offer this to show what the dyestuffs turnover in Farben was. It says there and I quote from page 34 of the document book:
"The documents at the Control office, I.G. Farbenindustrie A.G. show that out of the turnover of I.G. Farbenindustrie in dyes in 1938, of 57,368,613 kilograms -- 21,398,464 kilograms were sold in Germany with gross proceeds amounting to 120,814,583 marks. Whereas, 35,972,149 kilograms were sold for export with gross proceeds amounting to 179,184,593 marks."
That means that about 62.5 per cent of the dyestuffs business was exported and only 37.5 per cent was sold in Germany. That could be considered as circumstantial evidence that Farben could not have any interest as far as dyestuffs are concerned, in getting involved in a war and thereby destroying its exports.
Document 29 is an affidavit of Dr. Gustav Kuepper, which I offer as Exhibit 32. This deals with Farben's reinsurance abroad. Dr. Kuepper says that the re-insurance was placed through the big english firm Willis Faber in London, with numerous foreign firms, mostly English.
On page 36 of the book, in the last paragraph, I should like to read two sentences. "Those reinsurances were still in existence on 3 September 1939, that is, at the outbreak of the war. I have never got a directive to seek a substitute for the reinsurance taken in England."
Dr. Kuepper was a co-worker of Dr. von Schnitzler and if they had been planning a war, they would not have had their extraordinarily high holdings insured in England at the time of the outbreak of war.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, I have tried to figure out some possible basis of the relevancy of this document, and I still haven't seen it, I mean I don't sec what it proves that might be bf interest to any of these defendants, I would be glad to know.
THE PRESIDENT:The substance of that, or at least a part of that affidavit, is already in evidence. The facts with reference to insurance might have some probative value as a circumstance to show what the defendants knew or what they thought the course of events might be. The objection is overruled.
DR. SIEMERS:We now come to a new subject, The Werberat, the Advertising Council, a point which is also cited by the Prosecution as circumstantial evidence for the knowledge of Hitler's plans for a war of aggression. This is a point where I had to say to Mr. Sprecher that I did not understand him.
As Document 30 I offer Exhibit 33, the law concerning economic advertising of 12 September 1933, according to which the Advertising Council was set up. In paragraph 1, on page 39, it is said what the Advertising Council, was to be. It says: "For the purpose of uniformity and efficiency the entire public and private solicitation, advertisement, exhibition, fair and promoting business is subject to the supervision of the Reich. The supervision is exercised by the Advertising Council of the German economy." I can add nothing to that because I do not understand what this has to do with war of aggression. I can merely offer my Document 31 and ask the Tri bunal to accept this as Exhibit 34.
It is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, who was the business manager of the Advertising Council of German Economy and permanent deputy of the president of the Advertising Board of German Economy, and was therefore best informed about the Advertising Council. He says in the second paragraph that the Advertising Council was created and was charged with "the supervision and encouragement of advertising -- newspaper and poster advertising, fairs and exhibitions". He says, and this is perhaps important for the Prosecution, the "Economic Information Service remained with the Foreign Office, the political economic competences with the Reich Economy Ministry."
On page 43, in the last paragraph, you find the statement of Prof. Hunke about the duties of the Advertising Council which were, and I quote: "Removal of inconveniences in the advertising business which had long been recognized as such and combatted, organization and execution of joint advertising in connection with business and advertising groups, of German products for export purposes."
I skip the next sentence and continue at the top of page 44: "The elimination of unfair competition and unclean advertising methods brought close collaboration with associations of other countries, especially with associations of advertisers in England , U.S.A., Sweden, France, and resulted in the creation of the International Advertising Board at the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris."
The next paragraph emphasizes that there were no political tasks or political propaganda. He then says that Schnitzler, Gattimeau and Mann were members of the Advertising Council, and at the bottom of the page he says he knows of Mr. von Schnitzler that he was chairman of the Fair and Exhibition Committee of German Economy which was located at the Reich Group Industry, and that became a member of the Advertising Council. Mr. Mann was a specialist in the field of medicine advertising and market research."
THE PRESIDENT:Are there any announcements before we recess for the day? If not, the Tribunal is in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours, 30 April 1948)
Court No. VI,Case No. VI (COMMISSION) Official Transcript of hearing before a Com missioner for Military Tribunal VI, Case VI, in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Krauch et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 29 April 1948, Com missioner Johnson T. Crawford presiding.
THE MARSHAL:The Commission for Tribunal VI is not in session.
DR. BACHEM:Dr. Bachem for Dr. Ilgner. I am calling the witness Dr. Anton Reithinger. The witness is already on the witness stand.
ANTONREITHINGER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE COMMISSONER:The witness will raise his right hand and take the oath. "I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth, will omit and add nothing."
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE COMMISSIONER:The witness will be seated. You may proceed with the examination.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BACHEM:
QDr. Reithinger, you made some affidavits for the defense of Dr. Ilgner. They are the following affidavits. In Ilgner Document Book 2, Document No. 34, Exhibit 37 -
MR. AMCHAN:If Your Honor please, defense counsel conferred with Judge Shake in chambers and as a result of a discussion and agreement with counsel we would request that we suspend examination of this witness for the time being and put on the defense witness Goldschmidt at this time and after the conclusion of the examination of the witness Goldschmidt then we will proceed again with the examination of this witness.
THE COMMISSIONER:Is that satisfactory with defense counsel?
DR. BACHEM:Yes, sir.
THE COMMISSIONER:All right. This witness will be withdrawn Court No.VI, Case No.VI (COMMISSION) and another witness will be called.
Mr. Witness, you may be excused for the time being.
You may proceed.
DR. BERNDT:Dr. Berndt for the case of Degesch. Mr. Commissioner, the witness Dr. Goldschmidt is at the disposal of you, Mr. Commissioner.
THEOGOLDSCHMIDT, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE COMMISSIONER:The witness will raise his right hand and be sworn. "I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth, will omit and add nothing."
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE COMMISSIONER:The witness will be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERNDT:
QDoctor, will you please state your name again?
ATheo Goldschmidt.
QWhen were you born?
A 11 March 1883.
QAnd where are you living?
AI live in Essen.
QWhat is your profession?
AI am a chemist by profession.
QWhat is your position at present?
AI am president of the Vorstand, that is General Director of the Theo Goldschmidt Aktiengesellshaft (Shareholders Company).
QDo you have any other positions in public life in the field of chemistry?
AYes, I am President of the Landesverband Nordrhein, the Economic Association, the Economic Group Chemistry. Apart from that, I am Deputy President of the Economic Group Chemical Industry for Court No. VI,(Case No. VI (COMMISSION) the British Zone.
Apart from that, I am the President of the Chamber of Commerce of the cities Essen, moehlheim, Oberhausen, zu Essen. That is enough.
Court No. VI, Case No. VI (COMMISSION)
QDoctor, you made an affidavit for this trial. Do you have that affidavit in front of you?
AI have the affidavit in front of me.
QWould you please look at figure 3 of the same?
AYes.
QIn this affidavit, you say that the function of the Verwaltungsauschuss of Degesch consisted not so much in supervising the business management but in voting for the interests of the three partners of the Degesch--that is, the I.G., the Degussa, and the Theo Goldschmidt AG.
AMay I perhaps formulate that a little clearer? The Verwaltungsauschuss never supervised any details of the business management. This was obvious because of the choice of the members who were the heads of the firms of the three partners. The Verwaltungsrat, (Administrative Committee) therefore, did not work as a board of directors works in the States. It did not work like a board of directors. They handled it as is customary in Germany in many cases, by having a trusteeship company supervise the business once a year, which fact was confirmed by each executive member of the Verwaltungsauschuss. A certain continuous supervision by the managers existed, owing to the geographical closeness of the Degesch and the Degussa, from which the Degesch originated, as is known. Concerning the supervisory power of individual members of the Committee, not only the management of the Degesch but the Degussa management was sensitive too. For example, at the beginning of our cooperation, I personally held the opinion that the organization of Degesch could be simplified greatly by discontinuing the subsidiary plants. My suggestions for the reorganization of Degesch however, at the recommendation of Degussa, were refused by the Verwaltungsauschuss because the Degussa considered my suggestion a hint of mistrust. Apart from that, of course, they did not want that previous approvals they gave to former Court No. VI,Case No. VI (COMMISSION) collaborators in the companies of Hertlingler and Tesch and Stabenow should be endangered by this.
QOne final question. We heard here that the zyklon was a very dangerous product, a dangerous poison. Does one not always have to count on the fact that criminals might misuse it and would this fear not have imposed the duty on the members of the Verwaltungsauschuss to take care of this, to whom zyklon was delivered?
AOf course zyklon--that is, prussic acid--is a very dangerous poison. Therefore, strict security regulations had to be followed by the Degesch, but it was an insecticide which had been used for decades. It had been proven and as far as I know it was never used for criminal purposes. The idea of a criminal misuse was quite beyond our imagination and our experience. The situation can be compared to the scale of other poisons. Regulations by the authorities have to be followed very strictly but these cannot always stop misuse. How strict the regulations by the authorities were when selling poison gases, my company and I personally experienced when we founded the T Gas Company in 1929, and these difficulties were the main reason for the fact that we in the T Gas Company ceased to be independent and affiliated ourselves to Degesch because all health authorities knew and approved of them.
DR. BERNDT:Thank you. I have no further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. MINSKOFF:
QMr. Witness, you mention in your affidavit that during the period of the National Socialist regime you were faced with political difficulties. Will you explain the reason for the political difficulties and the nature of those difficulties?
AThe reason for the difficulties was, first of all, that neither I nor my brother, nor the most important cooperators were close to the Party. But the difficulties did not result in the fact that I Court No. VI, Case No. VI (COMMISSION) lost my position but they mainly consisted of the fact that I had a great number of unpleasantnesses caused by the local authorities of the Party.
QWell, what sort of thing, for example, occurred to you which you refer to as "political difficulties?"
AIn 1933, I had already for seven years been the Treasurer of the Association of German Chemists. In 1934, I had to give up this position to a well-known National Socialist, Staatsrat Schieber, and I had to leave the Vorstand of Association of German Chemists.
Court VI, Case VI (COMMISSION)
QWhat reasons were given you for asking you to leave?
AIt was desired that the Vorstand of the Association of German Chemists should minaly consist of Party members.
QIn other words, there wasn't any particular discrimination against you; it was merely that some other person who was more important in the Nazi regime took your position, is that right?
AYes.
QNow your factory, your enterprise was rather prosperous all during the Nazi regime wasn't it, in spite of your difficulties?
AI could not say that in general.
QWell, it was quite profitiable, was it not?
AAlthough our business reports and our official balances, expressed in paper marks, might have given the impressie of certain progress.
QBut that would be ture of everybody in Germany at the time -- the same paper marks that applied to all other firms -but you were making a very profitiable business during the Nazi regime, were you not?
AOur business would probably have succeeded better without National Socialism; in particular, because we would have been able to regain our prestige which we had abroad befor 1914.
QNow you create the impression in your affidavit that you weren't trusted by the Nazis because of the fact that you weren't with them. Now it's true, is it not that you were even permitted to carry a gun from '33 on to '44, isn't that right?
AI owned a license for a weapon; I don't know for how long; but in the fall of 1944 this license for a weapon that is after the attempt on Hitler -- this license was take away from me.
Court VI, Case VI COMMISSION
QYes, but the question I put to you was that all during the Nazi regime from '33 right to '44 you were permitted to keep this license and keep the gun, isn't that true, in spite of the lack of trust they had in you?
AYes.
QNow you state in your affidavit, Mr. Witness, that the function of the Verwaltungsrat--of the Administrative Committee--consisted less in supervising management than in ajusting the interests of the three partners. Now if that is so, Mr. Witness, how do you explain the fact that even though you and your firm were a partner in Degesch you had difficultie in obtaining information from the Degesch firm?
AWe had no idfficulties in obtaining information. We did not try to obtain information. We merely adjusted ourselve to the desire of our partners, after we had tried once during the early 1930's to exercise more influence, and we did not succeed.
QWell, you did explain, did you not, that the two big partners, Farben and Degussa, could always have all the information they wanted but you couldn't get the information you wanted because you were just a small partner?
ANo, I never complained about that. I do not know that they received more information than I did.
QMr. Witness, I show you NI-15021, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 2331, and ask you if that refreshes your recollection as to whether or not you complained that the two big partners could always cover themselves.
AMay I just look at this document? This concerns a letter wherein I ask for a reply to a suggestion and expressed my disapproval that I had not yet received the reply. I received the reply very soon after that warning.
QWell now, Mr. Witness, when you state that consider Court VI, Case COMMISSIONER the small participation of your firm, the management of Degesch is of course covered if it agrees with the two big partners, aren't you in fact saying that the management is controlled by the two big partners?
ANo, I do not say that. I merely say that it could have occurred very easily and that was my suspicion at the time-- that the management discussed the matters with the two major partners and they felt that they were justified because they had the approval of 85 percent. I wanted to point out that I demanded that I be informed about such discussions, and they did so immediately.
QNow, Mr. Witness, isn't it a fact that your differences were never really ironed out in the Verwaltungsrat, but on the contrary the two big partners, I.G. Farben and Degussa, even denied you access to the more conficential information?
AAt any rate, I did not become conscious of that; I did not notice it.
QMr. Witness, I show you Degesch Document No. 47 which is Defense Exhibit 13 for Degesch, and ask you whether that refreshes your recollection as to whether you were in fact denied access to information concerning Degesch?
AOn one occasion at the beginning of our cooperation in the middle of the 1930's, I had a difference with them because the limitation between the activity of the I.G. Farben and Degesch in my opinion was not running in the proper manner. Concerning that question, at the time in 1935 or '36, the two big partners outvoted me, but this was a matter which occurred in '35 or '36, and which was not settled at first but only later on in the Verwaltungsrat where it was settled.
QJust so that record won't have any lack of clarity on this point, is it your testimony, Mr. Witness, that after that time you had no trouble at all in getting the detailed information as to the Degesch business?
Court VI, Case VI COMMISSION
AI have already said that I adjusted my attitude to the conditions that existed. You must remember that the Degesch was not a very important company. Our profit from the Degesch was at the most 15 to 30,000 marks a year, and I could not dedicate a great deal of my time to this company, just as the other members of the Verwaltungs ausschuss -- the administrative committee-- who spent even less time on the Degesch; because I know from various statements that the Degesch as well as the Degussa considered me to be a man who was particularly interested in the Degesch. I must conclude from that that the other members of the Verwaltungs ausschuss were less interested in the Degesch that I was.
QNow, Mr. Witness, let's get back to the question. The question was this: after this difficulty, back around '35 or before, did you or did you not have complete access to all the information of the business of the Degesch?
ANo, but every year I received a fairly extensive business report and every year I got a statement by the president of the Verwaltungs ausschuss that the business of the Degesch was being checked by a recognized trusteeship company, and were in order.
QIn other words, there was an agreement then that you were then deprived of access to detailed information concerning Degesch from that time of your first difficulty on, by the two big partners?
ANo.
QAll you received were those reports at that time, is that right?
ANo, I don't believe that the other members of the Verwaltungsausschuss received more than I did; at any rate, I have no reason to assume that.
QWell, who would have the information of the actual Court VI, Case VI COMMISSION business and facts of Degesch?
AThe management of the Degesch.
QWho is the management?
AUntil 1939, that was a Mr. Stiege.
QWho was it after 1941?
AI believe after 1939 already it was a Dr. Peters.
QNow did Dr. Peters own any part of Degesch?
ANo.
QHe had no stock interest?
ANo.
AHe was just an employee?
AHe was director, the business manager.
QThat's right, he received a salary for his work?
AYes.
QAnd who appointed him?
AThe partners.
Court VI, Case VI COMMISSION Q that's the point we are getting back to.
Now you say that the only person who has any information about Degesch is just an employee who manages the firm and the partners have no access to the information. Is that your testimony?
AI did not say that. We were staisfied with the detailed report which the business manager issued every year. In Germany, this is generally done in that manner, if the companies affiliated in order to conduct a business...
QMr. Witness, I don't want a licture on German companies. I asked you for a factual question, and a factual answer is all we need for the record. I want to know if the partners had available to them the detailed information of Degesch or if that was only available to the employee Peters?
ANo. If we in the Verwaltungsrat committee would have wanted some detailed information, of course we were able to obtain it at any time.
QThank you very much. Now, Mr. Witness, in your affidavit you describe the function of this Verwaltungsrat of administrative committee, and you say that it is explicitly defined in Article IV of the agreement concluded between Degussa and Farben in June 1930. Isn't that right?
AIn June 1930? As far as I know, my company only joined in the fall of 1930.
QYour affidavit refers to the aggreement, Article IV of the Agreement, which was concluded between Degussa and Farben.
AYes.
QNow you state that that article defines the functions of the administrative committee.
AYes.
QNow, Mr. Witness, that was even before your firm was Court VI, Case VI COMMISSION in the Degesch firm?
AYes.
QNow wasn't there any new agreement after that?
AI believe our rights and duties were layed down once again in a new agreement in the year 1936.
QThat is right, so that, Mr. Witness, the paragraph you are referring to was completely superseded and null and void by the time you got into the firm?
ANo, it did not become null and void. After my firm joined, I also became a member of the Verwaltungsausschuss with the same rights as the other members of the Verwaltungsausschuss
QWell, when the new agreement was drawn, don't you recall that in that new agreement it is stated that all the contracts concluded between the parties in 1930 were rendered null and void as of July '36 and replaced by the new agreement which redefinied the duties of the administrative committee?
AI do not remember the details of the agreement of 1936 but the agreement of the year 1936, as far as I remember, did not influence the manner of our cooperation which had become established, after five or six years. I do not remember that during our discussions we ever had to go back to that because the cooperation went very well.
QMr. Witness, you may state anything you wish as to what the facts were after the agreement, but in your affidavit you are referring and calling the Court's attention to the fact that an agreement back in 1930 defined the rights of the partners. Now I want to ask you this question: before you made that affidavit, didn't you check to see whether the agreement in '36 didn't completely supersede the one you were citing in your affidavit to this Court?
AYes, of course; before I made my affidavit I looked the agreements once more and I found that Paragraph IV of Court VI, Case VI COMMISSTON the old agreement was not contained in the agreement of 1936.
When I made the affidavit at the end of last year, I was really surprised by this fact because the activity of the Verwaltungsausschuss, did not change, owing to the change of this agreement.
QMr. Witness, at the time you made this affidavit, you knew it was going to be Introduced in this court, and you took an oath saying what was therein was ture; you now say you read the later agreement and you knew the fact that the first agreement which had the Paragraph IV, the later agreement omitted that Paragraph IV, and knowing that fact you recite Paragraph IV as stating the duties and functions of the Verwaltungsrat.
AYes.
QDo you want the Court to believe that Paragraph IV which was expressly made null and void was actually still binding?
AIn my affidavit I say verbally: "although this paragraph was not contained expressly in the agreement of 1936, this function of the Verwaltungsausschen remained predominant after that time." I don't think I could express myself clearer.
QMr. Witness, in your affidavit you say the details of the Degesch business were never discussed by the Verwaltungsrat. Now isn't it true that for example in the meeting of 1939, in which you were represented, details even including profit calculations were discussed?
AYes. When we gathered for these administrative, then the business management gave us lectures about the balance, about the profits and the loss, about the development of the individual sparten of the business, about the conditions at home and conditions abroad on the market, and they alway Court VI, Case VI COMMISSION told us what technical improvements had been made during the last year and what their hoped would be result of this progress.