COURT VT CASE VI BY MR. NEWMAN:
Q.Have you read this part?
A.Yes.
Q.Now, will you please answer again my laet question which read: Were you ever advised with respect to the results of Farben's activities in acquiring participations in parts of the French dyestuffs industry and in shutting down other parts?
A.You spoke about information before. That means to me some sort of report that these transactions were occasionally discussed was obviously discussed of course....
Q.Now tell me, did you speak to Farben's Paris representative Monsieur Raidre on this matter?
A.Yes.
Q.And will you tell us what was the result of this discussion?
A.I said here... I told you once before that Mr. Raidre, in Paris, in February, '44, told me that 51 percent was not on the beauty of this matter. "If this 1 percent had not been there, the whole tiling would look different," and he said that his, Raidre's, opinion was that the French had been under pressure. That was the opinion of Mr. Raidre which he gave to me, and I told you that in an interrogation.
Q.Did he tell who exercised this pressure?
A.He did not say that any definite office or firm had exercized this pressure, but he spoke of the fact of German pressure, but he did not say who exerted this pressure. He did not know that -- or at least he did not tell me.
Q.Would you just read what you said on December 17th, when you made this testimony?
A.Yes.
Q.Did you state at that time that Raidre told you this pressure was exerted by the combined work of I.G. Farben and the German military authorities in France?
A.That does not contradict what I just said. I said that. I told you of an over-all pressure, and I said that that was the opinion COURT VI CASE VI of Mr. Raidre.
Q.Thank you.
DR.SIEMERS (Counsel for defendant von Schnitzler): Your Honors, if I understand correctly, the questions have been repeatedly asked which are about hearsay. I object. I didn't intend to interfere with every question; that is why I did not object immediately, but I would appreciate it if such questions about hearsay evidence: about what people told him, people from different fields which had nothing to do with Dr. Schlotterer, be no longer asked. I object to this question.
THE PRESIDENT:The objection is overruled. As we understand the situation, the witness stated in his examination in chief that he had no information or no knowledge of the transactions about which he is now being asked. It is proper for counsel for the Prosecution to remind him of statements that he may have made to test his recollection as to whether he has knowledge, and to test his credibility as a witness.
The objection is overruled.
DR. SIEMERS:Mr. President, to avoid any misunderstanding, I should like to say I do not recall that the witness said he had no knowledge, but he said he was not in charge of this matter, and I didn't ask him about it because I assumed that what he heard from third parties was of no importance. The important thing was whether he had dealt with the matter or not.
I just want to avoid misunderstanding,
THE PRESIDENT:Very well, counsel; we will not take time to search the record to see what the form of his answer was. He at least testified that he had no specific information about it, and, be that as it may, if the testimony now being inquired about does not contradict what he said before, there is all the more reason why the objection is not well taken.
The ruling will stand. Counsel may proceed with another question. BY DR. NEWMAN:
Q.Dr. Schlotterer, you have testified that Funk, then head of the COURT VI CASE VI Reich Ministry of Economics, was commissioned by Goering in 1940 to prepare plans for the economy of Europe after the German victory.
Now, as Commissioner of the Four Year Plan, was Goering competent to give such an order?
A.He arrogated this right, referring to Hitler. That was rather customary.
Q.Did Goering or the Four Year Plan authorities take an active interest in the economy of the occupied countries during the war?
A.Yes.
Q.Is it now true that a number of the state secretaries of the R.W.M. such as Dr. Landfried, were regular participants in the so-called Generalrat (General Advisory Council) of the Four Year Plan until Goering established the Central Planning Board in spring, 1942?
A.That state Secretary Landfried was in the Generalrat of the Four Year Plan, I know. Whether the Generalrat held many meetings, I do not know, and what role State Secretary Landfried played there, I do not knew either.
Q.Before going to my next question, I would like to briefly point to two statements you made today and yesterday. You have testified that it was the purpose of the New Order planning to accomplish a more ideal European economy in which the industries of a number of countries at war with Germany in 1940 would have no bitter feelings after the war. And you have also testified before the Commissioner of this Tribunal, and I would like to state that this was page 4625 of the transcript, that numerous Reich officials were gravely shocked when Goering announced to them in 1941 that Germany would follow colonial policy in the Occupied Eastern territories and that slave labor was to be re-introduced in the 20th Century. Now, my question is this: Did you believe that these same leaders of the Third Reich who initiated the colonial policy in the East as well as the slave labor program, which affected both the East and the West, were interested whether or not the leaders of industry in the formerly Occupied Western territories court VI CASE VI had any feelings of bitterness after the war?
DR. SIEMERS:I object. Dr. Schlotterer was a Prosecution witness on the subject which is now being brought up. That is the very point which has already been discussed before the Commissioner and which is in the record. I cross-examined the witness myself before the Commissioner. Consequently, I did not ask about these matters which referred to Dr. Schbtterer's testimony as a Prosecution witness.
I was of the opinion that the Prosecution should not be allowed to bring up tilings from the previous examination. This is the exact wording of the questions and answers from the examination of Dr. Schlotterer by the Prosecution in the direct examination and by myself in cross-examination.
If, of course, the examination before the Commissioner is to be repeated here, I should like an opportunity to participate.
THE PRESIDENT:In the view of the Tribunal, this question is not proper cross-examination of this witness with respect to the testimony which he gave in chief, and the objection is sustained. BY MR. NEWMAN:
Q.Then my last question, as far as the New Order is concerned. Wasn't it clear to you that the economic policy of the Third Reich in the years 1940 and '41 was a European economy under the domination and general direction of Germany?
A.In my statements about the New Order I spoke of the attitude of the Reich Ministry of Economics and of the plans which the Reich Ministry of Economics worked out, together with the groups. Any intentions or plans which Hitler or Goering may have had on this question were not known to us at that time. I had to add here to what my Minister told me, and he held the point of view that it should be done in a decent way, so that I can answer your question by saying that at that time I did not understand these matters completely.
Q.You mentioned yesterday the case of Mr. Roth, the Jewish employee of Farben, in Austria. Do you know any details about the Roth case?
A.No. Yesterday I had -
Q.Do you know or don't you know the details of the case of Roth and circumstances under which he was dismissed?
A.I know what I testified yesterday--nothing more.
Q.Can you tell us whether or not the case Roth was tied up with the violation of foreign currency regulations in middle-European countries where Farben was allegedly implicated, and whether Roth was arrested in Hungary on this count?
A.I know nothing about it. I know only what I testified yesterday.
Q.Do I correctly understand you? You don't know-THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the witness has specifically answered your question.
Q.Dr. Schlotterer, when did you become a member of the Nazi Party?
A.In 1928.
Q.Was this the first time, or did you join the Party for the first time in '23?
A.Yes.
Q.So you became a Party member--if I understand you--in '23--or did I misunderstand you?
A.No, you understood me correctly.
Q.Didn't you first say in '28? THE PRESIDENT: Now, counsel, if he said it, it is on the record and it will speak for itself.
Q.And when did you become a member of the SS?
A.In 1936.
MR. MEWMAN.No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Unless there is a request for further examination of this witness, we are about to excuse him.
Did you have anything further, Dr. Siemers?
RECROSS EXAMINATION GUSTAV SCHLOTTERER, Resumed BY DR. SIEMERS (Counsel for defendant von Schnitzler) :
QYou have just said on cross-examination that you talked to other firms about the New Order, but that you were not given any reports. You had approached other firms just as you had approached Farben?
AYes.
QWhy was it that the other firms did not give you any written reports?
AI had the impression that not only on this occasion but earlier too that the other firms did not have the necessary scientific resources to make such reports. As I said before, Farben had an Economic-Political and a National Economy Department with good resources, and with trained workers, and that was no doubt not the case in other firms. On earlier occasions too we observed that we were not served as well by other firms as we were by Farben.
QThank you. Now I would like to clarify one point which arose, I believe, because you misunderstood a question of Mr. Newman's, and you let it go by without objecting. If I understood correctly, it was said that Goering founded the Central Planning Board, is that correct?
AI did not understand that so well. Those are things with which I had nothing to do, and I don't know them from my own experience.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, unless there is some point, we will be glad to produce the order, if it is not already in the record; and I am certain Dr. Siemers has had access to it, if there really is any question as to by what authority the Central Planning Board was set up.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Siemers is interrogating the witness. If he desires to see what the witness knows about it, he is within his right.
Go ahead, Doctor.
BY DR. SIEMERS:
QYou do not know the details about the Central Planning Board?
ANo.
QYou do not know that the Central Planning Board was founded by Hitler and Speer?
ANo.
Q ...That there were even differences of opinion with Goering?
AI do not know that.
QThank you. How do you explain the fact that you are not informed about things that were as important in the economic field as the Central Planning Board?
AThe Ministry of Economics had very little to do with the Central Planning Board. I believe that our minister was on it, but I must observe that toward the end of the war there was so much reoganization that no one knew his way around any longer. Whether the Central Planning Board was created by Hitler or by the Four Year Plan or by the Ministry of Armaments, I do not know, because everything was confused. I merely know that it existed and that our minister was on it.
QThank you; that is sufficient.
I now come to the record of the interrogation of Mr. Newman's of 17 December, 1947, Exhibit 1852. You have this document before you?
ANo.
QAt that time, during the interrogation, did you say as you said today that the Chemistry Department of the Reich Ministry of Economics was in charge of the Francolor matters?
AYes.
QMr. Newman asked you-
THE PRESIDENT:Just a moment... You may go along.
QApparently Mr. Newman interrogated you several times. The 17th of December was not the first time?
AYes.
QOn the 17th of December he asked you: "Have you talked to the Defense in the meantime?"
Is that right?
AI believe so.
QDo you know of that record?
ANo, I do not have it.
QI wish it could be given to you.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, the protocol which has been translated and which will be offered later has not been mimeographed so we don't have copies for you. With respect to the question that we raised, we merely presented what we considered to be a prior, inconsistent statement that the defendant had made in another place. As soon as we do that and cross-examination comes, we naturally afford copies to counsel for the Defense. But I don't believe that that opens up the door to any of the other issues that may have been gone into in that interrogation. Unless the Defense wants to make this a pert of their proof for some purpose, we would have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT:The interrogation has not reached the point where the Tribunal can pass upon its competency. As I understood counsel for the Defense, he was inquiring about a document. Have you located the document you wish to hand to the witness, Doctor?
Dr. SIEMERS: Mr. President, it is the document that Mr. Newman showed to Dr. Schlotterer just now, which was offered for identification as Exhibit 1852.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. The Tribunal now knows that the document has been handed to the witness. Go along. BY DR. SIEMERS:
QDr. Schlotterer, didn't you have this document before?
AI had it but then it was taken away from me again.
QIn German or English?
AIn German.
QYou said that you were asked whether you talked to the Defense in the meantime. what was your answer that you gave at that time?
AI said that I had not talked to the Defense and that I had nothing to do with the Defense. That was at that time. I was a Prosecution witness.
QWho was the person in charge of Frencolor matters in the Chemistry Department?
AI cannot say exactly. I can only say that Dr. Muellert and Mr. Hoffmann were competent for such matters.
QIs it true that you also said that the opinion was generally held that there had been no compulsion exerted on the French side, that it was a voluntary agreement between the French and the Germans?
AThat was the general line of the Reich Ministry of Economics.
Q.Is it true that you told Mr. Newman that he should question Dr. Michel, the military administration chief in France?
MR.SPESCEER: (rises from his seat).
THE PRESIDENT:Objection is sustained. The objection is sustained. The Prosecution asked him about a specific question and answer that he made in this statement, also marked the exhibit for identification and stated in open court that when the document was processed it would be introduced in evidence. Under those circumstances, it would be useless to go to the extent counsel is going to prove the content of the document. It will speak for itself when we get it. BY DR. SIEMERS:
QMr. Newman asked you and you answered and spoke about Mr. Raidre, if I understood you correctly?
AYes.
QWho was Raidre?
AAt that time he was introduced to me in Paris as a man who had something to do with I.G. Farben. I was told that he was a representative of I.G. Farben, but the person who told me was not a man I would consider to be 100 percent informed. I was merely reporting on this Paris business, and I merely reported what I was told at the time.
QYou stated of Raidre that he complained?
AYes.
QYou also said that Raidre assumed over-all pressure?
AYes.
QDid he mean pressure inherent in the general political situation?
AWell, Raidre did not explain what he meant. He merely said "51 percent. That is unpleasant for France. We would not have done that voluntarily."
THE PRESIDENT:Counsel, it appears to me that it would he a waste of time to go further into that. There is no evidence that this man did or did not represent Farben, except what he said about it, and all the witness seems to know about the matter is what the gentleman told him. Now, that is getting into a pretty remote and speculative field to have probative value before this Tribunal, and in any event the circumstances are related in the document which will be evidence.
DR. SIEMERS:That is why I objected to hearsay evidence. This is hearsay and there are always complications. It is difficult to ask questions about such matters.
THE PRESIDENT:Then, counsel, in the interests of consistency you ought not argue with the Tribunal for sustaining your own view on the matter. So we are just holding you to what you say the proper practice should be. BY DR. SIEMERS:
QDid Dr. Michel negotiate with Laval about the Francolor agreement?
AThis was reported to me. In the interest of the subject I merely told what I had been told because they were asking me about it. I can't tell you anything else.
QRaidre told you this?
AYes.
QWhen was the Francolor contract signed?
AI do not know.
QDo you not know that it was in November, 1941?
AI cannot say.
QWhen was it agreed that the preperation would he 51-49 percent?
AI do not know.
QDo you know that this was in January, 1941?
THE PRESIDENT:Counsel, the witness has made it clear to you that he does not know, and nothing would he accomplished by pressing him further on that score. He said positively that he does not know.
DR. SIEMERS:Mr. President, I was merely wondering because the witness said he didn't know it but he testified about it in the interrogation with Mr. Newman. I merely wanted to clear this up.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. BY DR. SIEMERS:
QThen I have merely the question: Did you hold any high office in the Party or the SS?
A NO.In 1932 and '34 I was Gau Economic Advisor in Hamburg, and after I moved to Berlin I withdrew completely from the Party and I did not hold any office; I was an honorary member of it. I exercised no office and I was not active for the SS.
DR. SIEMERS:Thank you. No further Questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Anything further, gentlemen?
Then the Tribunal will excuse the witness. (Witness excused).
Call your next witness.
DR. SIEMERS:Your Honor, as I took the liberty of remarking yesterday I had merely asked to be allowed to examine two witnesses out of turn and asked Dr. Dix to wait with his case. I have now finished with these two witnesses, so that, as far as I know, Dr. Dix is now ready to continue with the presentation of Document Books.
THE PRESIDENT:Are you ready to take over now, Dr.?
DR. DIX:Rudolf Dix for Schmitz.
Mr. "President, I am fundamentally an optimist and therefore I hope that Book II is available in English translation and will reach the Court by the time I get to it, especially since Judge Merrell was kind enough to tell me that it will probably be ready in the course of the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT:Just a moment, Dr. Dix, until we check to see that we have our books ready here now.
Will the nessenger get Judge Morris' Book I, please.
DR. DIX:May I begin?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, you may go along and Judge Morris can look on my book until his arrives.
I don't know whether anything can be done about it, but the sound system is very, very noisy.
DR. DIX:May I begin?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, Dr. Dix.
DR. DIX:First of all, I may say that the Prosecution has at many points mentioned my client merely in passing -- merely mentioned the name. I shall leave these subjects to my colleague, who is more directly concerned, and if necessary I shall clarify such points by inquiry.
Now, as regards the Document Book, I should like to remark that I have made a rather detailed index so that the Court will be able to see the subject of each document from the index, and if the Court is looking for evidence on a certain subject, this can be seen from the index.
The heading of Book I and Book II reads "Alliance of I.G. with Hitler." The first document in Book I is Document Number 4, an affidavit of Dr. Kalle. I offer this document as Exhibit Number 4.
THE PRESIDENT:Now, just a moment, Dr. Let's check with the Secretary's office to make sure we get started correctly on your series of numbers.
Is that right, Mr. Secretary?
The Secretary advises that is correct; that you have three documents in previously and this is Number 4.
You may go along, Dr.
DR. DIX:Three documents for identification. That is why I begin with Number 4.
The Court knows the name Kalle from the previous evidence. He is a veteran Farben man. You know him as chairman of the so-called Kalle Circle. The Kalle Circle was the group in charge of the political and the economic political questions in IG Farben. The affidavit, first of all, on page 2, deals with the interest of Farben in maintaining peace with respect to Farben's serious losses in the first World War, as far as foreign interests and patents were concerned. Subsequently Kalle describes how in his capacity as a member of the Reichstag and as a delegate of the German Peoples Party -- Doutsche Volkspartei -- in agreement with all the important men in leading positions of Farben, was in favor of Stresemann's Policy. He then describes the attitude of Farben especially and other branches of industry, too, toward the die hard Right Wing of heavy industry; the dispute between the management of Farben men like Hugenberg, Kirdorf, and Thyssen. He then says very precisely that all members of the Verwaltungsrat of Farben were opposed to National Socialism and that as he recalls, before the seizure of power, Farben did not contribute any financial support to the Party. Then he discusses the allegod alliance of Farben with Hitler, which has been mentioned here repeatedly; the question of Sudeten gasoline; and he expresses his conviction that he considers it completely out of the question that Bosch, in view of his basic attitude, even considered collaborating with Hitler in order to realize his hydrogenation plans.
Under No. 3 of the affidavit he deals with Farben's activity in connection with the so-called Arbeitsgomeinschaft -- Working Alliance and this term has been explained to your Honors by the witness Kastel, meaning the contractually established collaboration between management and labor. Ha then deals with the reasons for merger and emphasizes that they were not the ones which occasioned the American legislation to legislate against Trusts, but that they were primarily questions of practical economic considerations and profits and emphasizes that Bosch was outspoken enemy of monopoly; that it was quite opposed to the basic idea of Farben to maintain uneconomic concerns by keeping prices up or by this fusion kepp unprofitable enterprises alive or to monopolize the world market by force.
I have now finished with the first document, Mr. President, I believe this would be a good time -
THE PRESIDENT:This would be a good time to take our recess.
The Tribunal will arise.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session:
THE PRESIDENT:You may continue, Dr. Dix:
DR.DIX: (Counsel for defendant Schmitz): The next document which bears document number 5 which I want to offer as Exhibit No. 5 is another affidavit of the Mr. Kalle mentioned previously. This affidavit deals in the first pages with the political attitude of Bosch and Duisberg.
May I remark that, even if these two gentleman are not in the dock and they are not alive, they were such determining factors for the ideological and political attitude of Farben that it is impossible to do without describing their characters and attitudes. Please read these pages.
The affiant further mentions the support of the Reich Association of Industries under leadership of Duisberg for the Young Plan which was fiercely opposed by the Sight radicals and he mentions that the witness Kastl, who Was examined here, was sent to Paris for the preliminary negotiations of the Reich Association.
He further testifies about the tension that prevailed in Berlin on account of the person of Duisberg and Bosch who opposed the Right radical wing of industry. Thyssen and Kirdorf. He also mentions the dismissal of Dr. Ley who was prominant at the time already which characterizes the then attitude of Farben who was later the leader of the Labor Front and which had attacked Farben because of its membersiin the Aufsichtsrat, Warburg and Hagen who were Jews.
He describes further Farben's intervention by Duisberg for Kindenburg's re-election, who was Hitler's opponant and he describes briefly Bosch's relationship With my client. He calls it friendly and good and he clarifies that one could not believe the rumor to be true that Schmitz had intended in any way to push out Bosch or replace Bosch.
He then describes Farben's intervention for the Pan-European movement corresponding to the spirit of Farben. He furthermore describes the financial intervention for the Internationally known democratic newspapers, "Frankfurter Zeitung". He mentions the considerable funds which were made available to Stresemann for his policy of reconciliation and he further mentions the financial support which Farben granted to the other democratic sections of the press, especially the "Frankfurter Nachrichten" which stood close to the Deutsche Volkspartei.
He states expressly that the charge that industry as such had supported Chauvinism and militarism and thus furthered the creation of the National Socialist Party and its accession to power cannot at any rate be applied to Farben. He also describes the institution of the so-called Kalle-Circle and the Social Political Committee.
This is the essential contents of this document.
MR. SPRECHER:Mr. President, the Prosecution does not wish, either with respect to this document or with respect to a large number of the documents in this book, to attempt this tine to point put anything concerning their materiality, the weight that should he given then; and, because some of then touch upon some points which are clearly relevant, at least in some parts of the Affidavit, we think it would be not Saving of time to make any motions to exclude the entire affidavit on the grounds that large parts of it are incompetent.
However, with respect to this specific affidavit, there are two portions which specifically are so speculative and so remote from anything in the nature of proof that we feel obliged to point out that, without whatever worth it may be in the future, providing your Honors are in agreement with our understanding of the rules of competency in any legal system-- and I ask you to look at page 31 of the English copy, beginning with the paragraph on religious questions and then to pass down to the next paragraph which states that if Bosch had been in the United States then he would have been a great character of one kind or another and then I ask you to pass over to page 35 and 36 where we have the following statement, and this is only characteristic of a number of things -- but I ask your Honors to hear me for a moment on this one point:
Beginning at the bottom of the page: "I believe that I an acting in the spirit of the deceased by expressing the conviction that carl Bosch, were he still alive, would even now accept full responsibility for all measures taken under his direction."
Now, I am quite aware that Dr. Dix, with a man that is approaching 80 years of age, it was possible he was approaching some particular problem but this matter, is I am just pointing out (Demonstration of laughter in the dock) I am afraid there must have been a translation error.
Dr. Dix, I was referring to the affiant, Kalle. I am sorry.
That these matters are so much in the nature of speculation that the Prosecution feels obliged to request the Tribunal to strike then.
THE PRESIDENT:I hardly think it will be necessary, Dr. Dix, for you to comment. I suspect, if you would review this record and apply strictly the rules of competency, we would eliminate much so-called evidence that has been introduced in the trial of this case.
There are two ways of looking at the matter. I think Counsel can depend upon the discernment of the members of the Tribunal to distinguish between that which is competent and has probative value and that which does not. I think also that you all agree that we would waste very much valuable time if we entered upon a program of editing those affidavits. We have expressed views of that kind before and I my say I think that there was some objection along the same line when some of the affidavits were offered by the Prosecution and were presented to the Tribunal.
It will be the view of the Tribunal that it will ascertain and determine for itself whether or not there is surplusage in these affidavits when we come to consider then and insofar as the affidavits contain incompetent and immaterial matters we shall disregard it and look only to the meat of the affidavits.
Of course, if it should become apparent that an entire affidavit is totally devoid of probative value, then we would consider the matter of rejecting it but so far as these affidavits are concerned we think we would put our time to better use to let them come in the form they are with the assurance that we Will undertake to eliminate from consideration those natters that are not competent and not of probative value.
I think in the interest of orderly procedure and the conservation of time that would be the better policy to follow.
DR. DIX:Mr. President, I ask that I be permitted to make a very brief statement. It is probably due to my 80 years that only during Mr. Sprecher's statements did I notice that he was speaking about a document that I had not yet offered; but it is true -- it is the document in line -- and what Mr. Sprecher has taken under his advisement, that is, the religious attitude of Mr. Bosch and the speculation what would have become of him had he been born in the United States, I would not have read into the record; but I cannot perscribe a man of the character of Buecher, whom I shall describe to you from my own knowledge very briefly what he is to write in detail. I can only give him the subject matter.
THE PRESIDENT:We have perhaps devoted as much time to this subject nows it deserves. The Tribunal has ruled and you may go along on the introduction of your documents.
DR. DIX:The next document, Document No. 6, will be offered by me us exhibit No. 6. It is an affidavit of Dr. Hermann Buecher. I have known Dr. Buecher for more than a generation. Before the First. World War he was with me in the Colonial service and he gradually rose to his position as business manager of the Reich Association of German Industry via the Foreign Office and reached his position with the Farben as director general of the "A. E. G.", the General Electric Company. He remained in this position until the end of the war.
Permit me to explain that Buecher -- and I can tell you this from my own knowledge -
THE PRESIDENT:I am sorry, Dr. Dix, I hardly think that would be proper. I think I ought to warn you that it is commonly said in some places where we have had some experience in practicing law that when a lawyer undertakes to testify he is presumed to be in more or less of a desperate state for a witness and I certainly would not want to see you got yourself in that unpleasant situation. I think you bettor leave your own thoughts about what you know about the witness out of the regard and go on and tell us very briefly what the affidavit is and let it go at that.
DR. DIX:Thank you very much for looking after me so well. The witness again describes on the first pages of this affidavit the Bosch's person which I ask you, please, to read.
May I then quote one passage from page number 5? There he says :
"If one speaks about a policy of the I. G. Farben industry it can only be termed purely economic. It was based on well organized scientific research, high technical ability and daring enterprise. Therefore, the realization of its plans lay in the future and it was most interested in a stable, peaceful development for every political complication must affect it disadvantageously in some way.
"It is, therefore, inconceivable to me that I. G. Farben should have condoned and conscientiously promoted Hitler's quest for power and conquest."
On the next page he also emphasizes the leading activity of Farben that I mentioned in the framework of the so-called Labor Community, the "Arbeitschemeinschaft."
He then mentions Farben's activity as represented by Bosch aiming at strong support of Chancellor Dr. Bruening to prevent Hitler's acension to power. He further speaks about the first meeting of Bosch with Hitler which ended in a clash between Hitler and Bosch and where Bosch stated that Hitler was a quack. He speaks about the serious concern which weighed down Bosch and his worry that what he had achieved for science and for humanity might be abused by Hitler whom he considered the power of evil which might be used for the disaster of humanity.
He further describes an oppositional speech which Bosch delivered during a meeting of the Vorstand of the "Deutsches Museum," the German museum. The consequences of this oppositional attack of Bosch are going to be treated in the next two documents.