. NMT05-T1217
Volume VI · Page 1217
| [exter…] mination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in
concentration camps, excesses in the administration of occupied territories,
the administration of the slave-labor program and the mistreatment and murder
of prisoners of war."¹ It seems clear that mass extermination of the Jews, mass murders in the guise of experiments in concentration camps such as described in the judgment in Case 1² recently decided by Tribunal I, and other atrocities referred to generally in the above quotation from the IMT judgment, were crimes against humanity and war crimes well recognized by international law quite independent of the legislation of the four powers embodied in the Charter and Law No. 10. An organization which on a large scale is responsible for such crimes can be nothing else than criminal. One who knowingly by his influence and money contributes to the support thereof must, under settled legal principles, be deemed to be, if not a principal, certainly an accessory to such crimes. So there can be no force in the argument that when, from 1939 on, these two defendants were associated with Himmler and through him with the SS they could not be liable because there had been no statute nor judgment declaring the SS a criminal organization and incriminating those who were members or in other manner contributed to its support. Relying upon the IMT findings above quoted the prosecution took the position that it devolved upon Steinbrinck to show that he remained a member without knowledge of such criminal activities. As we have stated in the beginning the burden was all the time upon the prosecution. But in the face of the declaration of IMT that such knowledge was widespread we cannot believe that a man of Steinbrinck's intelligence and means of acquiring information could have remained wholly ignorant of the character of the SS under the administration of Himmler. The extent of his knowledge and the part he played with such knowledge will be treated later in the opinion. Steinbrinck became a member of the Circle in 1932 in its early days when it was known as the Keppler Circle. At the instigation of Hitler or with his approval, Keppler gathered together a few industrial leaders including Steinbrinck for their advice upon economic questions including, it seems, the problem of solving the unemployment situation. There is evidence that industrialists believed Keppler would become Hitler's chief economic adviser and they were not unwilling to meet and exchange views with a man who was likely to become a powerful State leader. Flick was not drawn into the group until three years |
¹ Ibid, p. 273.
² Medical case, United States vs. Brandt, et. al. judgment section XII, Volume II, this series.
