RM 250,000 RM 1,000,000 RM 1,000,000 RM 750,000 4,000,000 -500,000 RM 3,500,000 Berlin, for cable transfer to Krupp Repair Works, Paris, through RKK Berlin. Here again the date when RKK Berlin gave instructions for the cable transfer is not shown. Teletype order of Essen Finance Department, dated 5 November 1942, to Finance Department Berlin for cable transfer to Krupp Repair Works, Paris; according to cable of Finance Department Berlin, transferred on 5 November 1942 by RKK Berlin. Teletype order of Finance Department Essen, dated 11 November 1942, to Finance Department Berlin for cable transfer to Krupp Repair Works, Paris; carried out by RKK on 11 November 1942. Teletype order of Finance Department Essen, dated 21 December 1942, to Finance Department Berlin, for cable transfer to Krupp Repair Works, Paris. Carried out by RKK Berlin on 23 December 1942. Teletype order of Finance Department Essen, dated 30 January 1943, to Finance Department Berlin for cable transfer to Krupp Repair Works, Paris. The date when RKK Berlin carried out the transfer is not shown. Of this sum only RM 250,000 were accepted in Paris, the remaining 500,000 being refunded. These RM 500,000 were transferred by Dresdner Bank, Essen, to the German-French clearing [fund] on 11 March, 1943; however, due to disbursement difficulties, the money was recalled and credited again as of 19 July 1943. I hope that this information meets your requirements. 3. AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFENDANT ALFRIED KRUPP TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NIK-10332 AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFENDANT ALFRIED KRUPP, 30 MAY 1947, CON- Affidavit I, Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, after having had it called to my attention that I am liable to punishment for giving false testimony, declare herewith under oath, of my own free will and without duress, the following: As far as I can remember, Mr. Loeser, sometime during the year 1942, made mention in the directorate of his intention to found a Krupp company in France for the purpose of coordinating all existing Krupp interests in France. During my visit at Liancourt some months later, I believe it was in the summer of 1943, Mr. Johannes Schroeder talked to me about carrying out this plan. I have, however, no recollection of the details. Personally I know nothing about the financial manipulations that led to the foundation of the Krupp company in Paris. Especially, I don't know where the funds came from, that were used for the foundation of the Krupp company in Paris. Neither do I know anything about the amount of capital for this new undertaking. From the viewpoint of the Krupp administration, it was Mr. Ewald Loeser's responsibility to solve the financial problems connected with the foundation of a Krupp company in France. Although I cannot say, whether he carried out the details of this financial plan personally, it is certain that these financial problems belonged within the sphere of responsibility of Mr. Loeser. When for instance, the State or the Wehrmacht approached the Krupp firm with demands which the firm found impossible to finance or could only have financed with the greatest difficulty, the possibility existed to get loans from the State for the carrying-out of those investments. Loan contracts concluded for these purposes contained a so-called war risk clause during the war. This clause provided that under certain war-conditioned circumstances the firm was not absolutely obligated to pay back the loans to their full amount. The erection of the Krupp Bertha Works in Markstaedt* was carried through with the help of such *The Markstaedt plant (Krupp's Bertha Works) was built during the war in Silesia. The utilization of foreign laborers and concentration-camp inmates in the construction and operation of this plant was involved in the charges of slave labor. See VIII B and C, below. loans. The plant had to be abandoned in the course of war actions and fell into the hands of the Russian Army. If the war had not ended with a complete collapse, the Krupp firm would not have been obligated, for instance, according to the contract, to pay back to the Reich the loan taken up for the erection of this plant. I have carefully read each of the two pages of this affidavit; have made the necessary corrections in my own handwriting and initialed them; I declare herewith under oath that I have told the whole truth in this affidavit to the best of my knowledge and belief. [Signed] KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH 4. EXTRACTS FROM TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS JOHANNES SCHROEDER* DIRECT EXAMINATION DR. WENDLAND (associate counsel for the defendant Loeser): Witness, to begin with, may I ask you to give your full name to the Tribunal? WITNESS SCHROEDER: Johannes Schroeder. [Defense counsel then proceeded to give the witness instructions concerning the use of the simultaneous translation equipment] Q. When did you join Krupp? A. February 1938. Q. How did you join Krupp? A. Dr. Loeser was looking for an assistant. He asked several firms in Berlin to suggest four candidates each. From the number of people suggested, he chose me. He then made me an offer which I accepted. Q. What sphere of activity was assigned to you? A. To begin with, I was Dr. Loeser's deputy. After a time I took over the accounting branch. Q. What were the tasks of the accounting office? A. I was in charge of all formal matters of finance, that is to say, the balance sheet, plant accountancy, statistics, checking of calculations, fixing of prices, taxes, organization, and auditing. * Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 27-29 April 1948, pp. 61066249. Q. What is your position today? A. Today I am the head of the financial department of Krupp. Q. How long have you been that? A. Since April 1943. Q. If I understood you correctly, you mentioned just now that organizational questions came under your jurisdiction? A. Yes, however, we only had to do with the organization of the accounting office and of the administrative department. I had nothing to do with the plant organization. Q. Who was in charge of the organization of the plant? A. The plant managers, who had a large amount of independence. Besides them, there was a so-called plant operational department headed by Mr. Girod. This department only intervened from case to case either if there was something wrong in the plants or if the Vorstand asked for a certain job to be done. Q. The situation which you described just now, was it the same in Essen and in the plants outside of Essen? A. The leaders of the concern plants also had quite a lot of independence, actually more independence than the Essen officials. We only intervened as the case required, when we noticed in Essen that something had gone wrong. Q. If I understood you correctly, you are talking about plant organization. Did the plants also have a certain independence in financial matters? A. Yes, they had a great deal of independence in financial matters, with certain restrictions. The Central Office Essen gave to the subsidiary plants exact instructions as to the drawing up of balance sheets. Q. Did you have a fixed system for your balance sheets? A. Yes, the system for the drawing-up of balance sheets was uniform for the whole Krupp concern, so that the figures of the concern plants could be compared. Q. Did this balance sheet procedure show any peculiarities or was it the customary one? A. It was the one generally used in Germany, as prescribed by corporation law, and it was subject to certain directives by the economic group [Wirtschaftsgruppe]. Q. Were these balance sheets audited by a trustee? A. The balance sheets of Krupp and its concern plants were audited once a year by an independent auditor. In addition, they were audited by the financial authorities every three years. On these occasions, approximately ten auditors checked the books for about 1 year. Q. From the statements you made up to now, I conclude that the influence of the Central Office Essen on the individual plants 903432-51-37 was relatively small in financial matters. How then did the firm management in Essen safeguard its influence? A. Mainly by two methods; one, the concern plants could not expend sums exceeding 10,000 marks without the permission of Essen. In such a case, they would have to make a credit application. Q. Did this limit beyond which authorization was needed, this 10,000 mark limit, apply to all expenditures of the plants or were there certain differences? A. This limit applied only to investments; that is, purchase of real estate, construction of buildings, purchase of machines, or acquisition of participations, that is, all items which are shown in the balance sheet under invested capital. Q. What is the contrary of invested capital? A. Current funds, i.e., for the purchase of goods, the settlement of obligations and so forth. Here the concern plants had a completely free hand just as the Essen departments. Q. When we consider the size of the Krupp combine, the amount you mention, this limit of 10,000 marks beyond which authorization for investments was needed, seems to be extraordinarily small. A. This regulation concerning investments had been issued after the inflation. In 1924, money in Germany was very tight, so that even small expenditures had to be watched. The regulation was not revoked later on. Q. Did you have further safeguards of a financial nature? A. Yes, the concern plants were not allowed to have cash or bank accounts in excess of their needs for current business operations. All other amounts had to be transferred to the Essen office and credited to the finance office. They were also not authorized to take up bank credits, to incur debts. When they needed money they had to request it of Essen. In compensation, we gave them a rate of interest above the normal rate, whereas for credits they had to pay a rate of interest smaller than that taken by the banks. The finance department, in other words, was a sort of bank for the whole combine. Q. On several occasions we here discussed the so-called credit applications. I would like very much to hear from you in detail what was the procedure regarding the approval of such credit applications and how these applications were processed. To aid you in this, may I show you your affidavit of 27 October 1947, which you gave to the prosecution? This is Document NIK12471, Prosecution Exhibit 514, on page 68 of the document |