 |
of Kontinentale Oel A.G., one of whom was my client in his capacity
of representative of I.G. Farbenindustrie, are made responsible for the
execution of measures which the management of Kontinentale Oel A.G. had to
carry out in connection with the Eastern campaign upon orders of high
government offices.
At the time of the submission of this evidence by
the prosecution, I raised an objection and the matter was thoroughly discussed
in the meeting of 20 November 1947. I shall return to this point at the
appropriate time. I shall discuss what business activity the firm in question
developed, and the question at issue then will be whether the Vorstand of the
IG or Dr. Buetefisch had any opportunity to exert any influence on the business
management of Kontinentale Oel A.G. The legal interpretation which was
expressed on the occasion of the submission of evidence by the prosecution will
also play a part in this.
I shall examine further cases brought forward
for my client under count two of the indictment only insofar as they are
brought forward within the framework of the joint responsibility of the
Vorstand of IG asserted by the prosecution, and only when it is necessary for
the refutation of the criminal joint liability asserted by the prosecution.
Under count three, the prosecution brings serious charges against the
IG officials, and thus against my client also, on the grounds of their
employment and treatment of foreign and compulsory laborers. Intentions, or
even actions, such as described by the prosecution in its evidence as crimes
against humanity, have not been the practice of IG, according to the history of
its development, or the conduct of its affairs. Their achievements and general
attitude with regard to social welfare were recognized far beyond the German
borders. To justify its charges against the officials of the IG who, in fact,
embody the general attitude of the enterprise, the prosecution has submitted a
mass of evidence which was supposed to reveal the illegal engagement of workers
and their treatment in the individual IG factories, particularly in Auschwitz.
A critical examination of this evidence must be reserved until a later time. It
can, however, be said, even now, that the prosecution has committed a fatal
error in using purely local occurrences — which have nothing to do with IG
or the IG factories — as a screen, and in generalizing and describing as
typical, isolated cases which the witnesses have mostly submitted, not from
personal observation but from hearsay, and the defense questions their
admissibility. It has also never been elucidated how far IG employees actually
took part in incidents described in the prosecution's evidence. On this
subject, the defense will submit evidence from various quarters |
284 |
. 
