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?