§ 37. Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the decision was taken in principle to give Herr Krupp financial compensation for his industrial property; when the decision in principle was communicated by the American authorities to the British Government; and what communication was then made by the British Government to the American authorities on the subject.
§ Mr. EdenI would ask the hon. Baronet to await a statement which I propose to make after Questions.
§ At the end of Questions—
§ Mr. EdenWith your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the case of Herr Alfried Krupp in reply to Question No. 37.
196 Alfried Krupp is the son of Gustav Krupp, who was arraigned as a major war criminal by the International War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg, but found unfit to plead. He succeeded his father as head of Krupps at the end of 1943.
Alfried Krupp, together with a number of other industrialists in the British Zone, was handed over towards the end of 1946 by the authority of the late Government to the United States authorities for trial in the American Zone War Crimes Court. He was tried and convicted in 1948 of having employed slave labour and of having plundered occupied territories. He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and to confiscation of all his property. On the other hand, he was acquitted on charges of crimes against peace, and conspiracy.
In January, 1951, the American High Commissioner reviewed the sentence imposed by this American court. He decided to reduce Krupp's prison sentence to the six years already served and to revoke the confiscation of his property. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said in his statement on 12th February, 1951, the review of Krupp's sentence was entirely a matter for the American High Commissioner, who was under no obligation to consult His Majesty's Government.
In reviewing Krupp's sentence, the American High Commissioner found that this was the only case in which a war criminal had been sentenced to forfeiture of property—this was not done even in the case of Goering and Ribbentrop. He felt that confiscation in this instance was not justified by any special considerations attaching to Krupps.
Under an Allied High Commission Law of May, 1950, approved by His late Majesty's Government, the French Government and the United States Government, the whole German coal and steel industry was to be reorganised so as to break up excessive concentrations of economic power.
Under that Law, the Krupp coal and steel complex is being broken up into independent units; and an Order is to be issued under which Krupp will be compelled to sell his securities in the coal and steel companies. No provision was made under that Law by which Krupp's 197 holdings in these companies could be confiscated either in whole or in part.
On the contrary, in view of the decision to revoke the confiscation of Krupp's property, the effect of this Law was to provide him with compensation for all his holdings. No reliable estimate can yet be formed of the amount which the sale of Krupp's securities will realise but it will run into many millions. Needless to say this money will be drawn entirely from German sources.
So much for the past. As to the future, we are seeking to ensure that Herr Krupp shall not be allowed to use the proceeds of the sale of his holdings to buy his way back into the coal and steel industries or otherwise to acquire a controlling interest. The means of achieving this end are under discussion in Germany between the High Commission and the Federal Government.
§ Mr. C. DaviesDoes the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the restoration of this vast sum of money to this family, whose activities were of such assistance to Hitler and all his evil associates, has deeply shocked people everywhere? May I further ask him whether, in as much as this man was found guilty of using slave labour and of taking other people's property, it is not possible to divert some of this wealth to those people who have suffered, and, thirdly, in as much as the Peace Treaty has not yet been discussed, whether the activities of people such as this cannot be considered in connection with that Peace Treaty?
§ Mr. EdenI am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that these decisions are not decisions recently taken. Herr Krupp was handed over by His late Majesty's Government in 1946—as long ago as that—for trial by the American authorities. They carried out the trial and they carried out the sentence, and they then reviewed the sentence as they are entirely entitled to do, and as each one of us is entitled to do in our respective zones. After that, by a law also passed under the late Government, compensation has to be paid where these expropriations are made. It does not lie within my power, in any circumstances, to say that this compensation is not to be paid now at this stage after all these laws have been passed which are actively taking effect. It is not remotely within my power.
§ Sir R. AclandAlthough this decision is clearly one taken by the American authorities, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that, now that it is seen how it works out, we ought, in some way, to express our view that the restoration of so large a sum, to a man who has made it entirely out of war activities, must be an enormous discouragement to innumerable people who are being called upon to work and sacrifice, in order to safeguard us against another onslaught by totalitarians?
§ Mr. EdenI think that the hon. Baronet has misunderstood. This compensation has been paid under the Allied High Commission law of May, 1950, passed as long ago as that, in the late Government's term of office. I have no power now suddenly to say that we are going to revoke the law passed at that time by all the Allies together.
In the second place, so far as the action of remitting the sentence is concerned, that was taken in January, 1951. The Prime Minister at that time, now the present Leader of the Opposition, said, absolutely rightly in my opinion, that he had no power, once the Americans had taken that decision. They were in their right to do it. Why we handed over Herr Krupp to the Americans to try is another matter. No doubt, at the time, we had good reasons; I do not know. The point is that this Allied arrangement was made long before this Government took office and no power rests with me, under the present law, suddenly to revoke something which has been carried on for all this long time.
§ Mr. MarloweIs it not abundantly clear that full responsibility for all this rests fairly and squarely on the last Government?
§ Mr. YoungerIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has said himself that His late Majesty's Government were not consulted about the events that took place, and the Americans were under no obligation to do so. Secondly, does he not think that while it is quite true that we cannot reverse the processes in the American zone, nevertheless, this case, which has shocked the whole of opinion in this country and in Europe, underlines the importance of taking whatever steps are possible to prevent the control of the 199 Ruhr industries getting back into the sort of hands they once were in?
§ Mr. EdenI am in agreement with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, and that is exactly what I am trying to do. In view of what has happened up-to-date, I do not want to make promises unless I am sure they can be carried out. [Interruption.] No, because when hon. Members opposite were in Government they allowed all this to develop and then their supporters attacked us for it in the public Press. I am very anxious, but I am not prepared to give all sorts of guarantees unless I am sure. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that our purpose is to carry out the last part of his supplementary question. I have only explained what has happened in the past because of attacks made upon us, without any justification, for actions taken by the late Government.
§ Mr. BellengerDoes it not still lie within the province of the German Government, if they want to, to nationalise the coal and steel undertakings?
§ Mr. EdenCertainly it lies within their power to do that, and, of course, it equally lies in their power to levy taxes. That is entirely for them. Equally, there is the question of pensions, which, I understand, Herr Krupp is called upon to meet to the extent of nearly £1 million a year. All that is for the Germans. What I am trying to explain to the House is what our remaining powers are as a result of what has happened.
§ Mr. C. DaviesMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that we are not blaming him or the previous Government? I am anxious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will see if something can be done, either now or in the Peace Treaty, to deal with this matter. It is not a question of awarding blame but of whether something can actually be done.
§ Mr. EdenI am not trying to award blame. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Member has only to read the attacks made by Members of his own party over this business in the last few months. We have been attacked consistently by some of the Left Wing Press for something we have not done. Actually the whole of this arises from something 200 done by the late Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—yes—and I think much of it was inevitable because, once Krupp was handed over for the Americans to deal with, there was no way out of the situation. If they are not to blame, neither are we in this matter.
All I can say is that, so far as I can judge from the powers now remaining, I do not think there is any action we can take except on the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger). Those are the lines on which we are now working—to see that this situation does not arise again.
§ Mr. John HyndOn a point of order. I have risen several times to put a supplementary question. A direct charge was made about what happened under my administration in this particular case Am I not entitled to reply to it?
§ Mr. SpeakerI will bear that in mind, but we cannot debate this very much longer.
§ Mr. PagetIs not the trouble here that we did not put Herr Krupp on trial because we were advised that the criminal charges against him were purely bogus, that the Americans have now come to the same conclusion and that now, therefore, it is not very easy to treat him differently from anybody else?
§ Mr. EdenI really do not know why we did not put him on trial but handed him over to the Americans. I do not know.
§ Mr. HyndIn view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly tried to suggest—I do not suggest this unfairly—that this is something that has been done under the Allied Control law when the previous Government were in office—I am sure he does not wish to mislead the House—will he not find out and tell the House that that law did not make any provision for payment of compensation to Herr Krupp and that the compensation provided for in that law was only in cases where anyone charged with a war crime had been released? That has been done in the American Zone since. There is no provision in that law for compensation for war criminals.
§ Mr. EdenI am advised that once Herr Krupp was exculpated, as he was by the American action, of course compensation fell due to him as to anyone else—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerWe cannot debate the matter further. I will call Mr. Eric Fletcher.
Mr. FletcherIs it not a fact that the reason why the American High Commissioner did not confirm the sentence of confiscation was that if he had confirmed it we should never have been able to keep the Krupp assets but would have had to divide them with Soviet Russia?