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. 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. 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
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
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
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL GRANTING
POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN