ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN
Nuremberg, 13 November 1945
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
Last modified: October 10, 1998