. NMT06-T0174
Volume VI · Page 174
| itself, to be no special indication of a
responsibility under criminal law, as the other members of the Vorstand have
not been indicted, After the lucid statements made by Dr. Kimmich, who was
offered by the prosecution as an expert witness, statements made on 5 and 6
May, referring to the "law concerning the organization of national labor" and
who regards the "plant leader" as bearing the responsibility, I could limit
myself to the statement that Dr. Terberger was neither the plant leader nor the
deputy plant leader of the factory. The activities as a military economy leader (Wehrwirtschaftsfuehrer) or of a counterintelligence commissioner, from certain dates on, neither created nor increased Dr. Terberger's responsibility in questions relating to the utilization of foreign labor. Each member of the Vorstand was compelled under the strong and permanent pressure of a production program to be fulfilled according to government requirements, to do everything possible in his sphere of duties to carry out this program. This was not possible without information and cooperation on the part of all departmental chiefs. In the performance of these duties and making use of these rights of every member of the Vorstand, Dr. Terberger in every individual case also got his information and dealt with certain questions affecting the situation of the foreign workers. All members of the Vorstand — including Dr. Terberger — received their information from the competent experts, thus with regard to all welfare and foreign workers questions for all enterprises of the Maxhuette, which were situated 100 or more kilometers apart, from Dr. von Hoven; and with regard to the individual works from the technical managers who simultaneously were "deputy plant leaders," for example, in the Rosenberg plant, from Director Laermann. It would go too far to present now how that worked out in detail. We shall see that in our case-in-chief. The information described above had to be and could be sufficient for Dr. Terberger, too, for the performance of his duties as a member of the Vorstand. It could only be insufficient if in spite of the supervision by the chief of the welfare department there was reason to assume the existence of abuses. The analysis of and commentary on the comparatively few documents submitted by the prosecution, and further proofs, will show that in view of the period of time extending over several years, in view of the large number of workers, in view of the abnormal living conditions resulting from wartime distress also for German workers, and especially in view of the government, police and Party regulations, there existed no abuses which should or could have caused Dr. Terberger to intervene. On the other |
