The Nuremberg Trials (Vol.2). International Military Tribunal

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ he should be tried in absence or that he should not be tried in absence?

      SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: Mr. President, we have suggested that advantage should be taken of the provision for trial in absentia, but as I said at the beginning, it is, as it appears to me, entirely a matter for the discretion of the Tribunal, not one in which I wish to press any particular view.

      THE PRESIDENT: Does the Chief Prosecutor for the Soviet Union desire to speak? You were authorized, I think, Mr. Justice Jackson, to speak on behalf of the Chief Prosecutor of the Soviet Union.

      MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I was authorized to state that they take the same position as the United States. I don’t know that in answering their questions I would have always given the answers that they would have given. I understand, for example, that they do try cases in absentia, and I think their position on that would be somewhat different from the position I have given.

      THE PRESIDENT: This question I asked you, of course, was directed solely to the Municipal Law of the United States. Does the Chief Prosecutor of the Soviet Union wish to address the Tribunal?

      COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): No.

      THE PRESIDENT: Then does the Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic wish to address the Tribunal?

      M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): It would be easy to justify the position taken today by the French Delegation by merely reminding oneself that on numerous occasions the French Delegation has advocated the immediate preparation of a second trial in order that it might be possible to proceed with it as soon as the first trial was completed. We could in this way have prosecuted the German industrialists without any interruption. This point of view has never been adopted. We have rallied to the point of view of the United States as being the most expedient and most susceptible of giving complete satisfaction to French interests. We are anxious that Krupp the son should be tried. There are serious charges against him, and no one could possibly understand that there should be no representative in this trial of the greatest German industrial enterprise, as being one of the principal guilty parties in this war. We should have preferred that a second trial be made against the industrialists, but since this second trial is not to take place, we consider the presence of Alfried Krupp to be absolutely necessary.

      THE PRESIDENT: What is the position, which you take up if the substitution of Alfried Krupp would necessarily lead to delay?

      M. DUBOST: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, but I believe you have in your hand a second note which I submitted this morning to the Court after having received a telephone call from Paris.

      THE PRESIDENT: I have in my hand a document of 13 November 1945, signed by you, I think.

      M. DUBOST: That is right. There is, however, a supplementary note, which I submitted this morning, according to which I adopt the same viewpoint as that expressed by Mr. Justice Jackson. I was in fact able to find out between the document of last night and that of this morning the consequences that would be brought about. . . .

      THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the best course would be to read this document which has now been put before us.

      M. DUBOST: “We consider that the trial of Krupp’s father is not possible at the present time. The trial of a dying old man who is unable to attend is out of the question. We are anxious that Krupp’s son should be prosecuted for there are very serious charges against him. We had asked up to this point that he should be prosecuted without any delay in the trial, but for reasons of expediency which led us to adopt this point of view, this has ceased to be a pressing problem since the Soviet Delegation has adopted the point of view of Mr. Justice Jackson. Consequently we no longer raise any objection, and we likewise have come to this point of view.”

      THE PRESIDENT: Does what you say now mean that you wish Alfried Krupp to be substituted notwithstanding the fact that it must cause delay?

      M. DUBOST: Yes, that’s right.

      THE PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting on behalf of France that Gustav should be tried in his absence or not?

      M. DUBOST: No, no, not that, no.

      THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Volchkov): What does the French prosecutor and the French Republic offer so far as Gustav Krupp is concerned?

      M. DUBOST: As to Krupp, the father, we consider it is not possible to prosecute him because of the state of his health; he will not be able to appear before the Court. He will not be able to defend himself. He will not be able to tell us about his acts. It is necessary to drop his case or to postpone the Trial to a time when he shall be cured, unless before that he appears before the judgment of God. We also believe, since we cannot obtain a second trial against the industrialists, that it is necessary to substitute Krupp, the son, against whom serious charges exist, for Krupp, the father, who cannot be tried.

      THE PRESIDENT: Do you agree or disagree with the Attorney General for Great Britain that in the course of the Trial, whether Gustav Krupp or Alfried Krupp are included as defendants, the evidence against the industrialists of Germany must be exposed?

      M. DUBOST: We have been anxious, Mr. President, that a second trial should be prepared immediately to follow the first trial in which the question of the industrialists would be thoroughly examined. Since it is not possible to have a second trial, we are anxious that one of the representatives of the Krupp firm, who is personally responsible and against whom there are charges, shall be called upon to appear before this Tribunal to defend himself against the charges that we shall bring against the Krupp firm, and in a more general manner also against the industrialists who were associated with the Krupp firm and who participated in the conspiracy which is presented in the Indictment, who supported the seizure of power by the Nazis, supported the Nazi Government and propaganda, financed the Nazis and finally helped the rearmament of Germany in order that it might continue its war of aggression.

      THE PRESIDENT: Forgive me. I don’t think you have answered the question which I put to you. Do you agree with the Attorney General that whether Gustav Krupp or Alfried Krupp are or are not defendants in this Trial, the evidence against the German industrialists will necessarily be thoroughly exposed in the course of bringing forward the evidence of the conspiracy charged?

      M. DUBOST: I agree that it is possible to bring the proof of a conspiracy without this or that member of the Krupp family being brought before the Court, but it will only be fragmentary proof and evidence, because there are personal responsibilities which go beyond the general responsibilities of the authors of the conspiracy, and these personal responsibilities are particularly attributable to Krupp the son and Krupp the father.

      THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): You said just now that it was your opinion that the name of Krupp the son should be substituted for that of Krupp the father? Do you really mean the word “substitute”? Did you use this word intentionally or do you not rather wish to say that it was your opinion that there should be an amendment to the Indictment and that we should apply a supplement to the Indictment? Do you consider that you can propose to the Court to substitute one name for another in the Indictment or do you suggest on the contrary a supplement be added to the Indictment?

      M. DUBOST: I have thought for a long time that it was necessary to propose an amendment to the Indictment. It is still my opinion, but it is not legally possible to modify the Indictment by a supplement.

      THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Does counsel for the Defendant Gustav Krupp wish to address the Tribunal again?

      DR. KLEFISCH: I deduce from the explanation of the Prosecution that the principal objection against our point of view is that it would not be in accordance СКАЧАТЬ