 |
We are therefore in a position to say at this point that neither in
count one nor in count two of the indictment has the charge against the
defendant Duerrfeld been proven conclusively, so that the defendant Duerrfeld
must be pronounced "not guilty" to that extent, without the necessity of
considering the evidence submitted by the defense or the legal evaluation
thereof.
In count three of the indictment, the defendant Duerrfeld is
accused of having committed, together with the other defendants during the
period from 1 September 1939 to 8 May 1945, war crimes and crimes against
humanity as defined in Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that he
participated in the enslavement and deportation to slave labor of members of
the civilian population of the occupied countries, and in the enslavement of
concentration-camp inmates.
In accordance with the scope of the
prosecution's case in chief in connection with this count of the indictment,
the actions of the defendant Duerrfeld need only be examined insofar as his
participation in the construction of IG's Auschwitz plant is concerned. In view
of the fact that he was not a member of the Vorstand or of the Technical
Committee and did not, therefore, have any influence on the question of the
employment of foreign labor and of prisoners in general, there is no need to
put forward a legal evaluation of the labor problems of Farben in general, and
of certain other plants, in connection with the defense of the accused and with
the assessment of his guilt before the law.
As the evidence submitted
by the prosecution has already shown, the construction of a fourth buna plant
in Upper Silesia was ordered by the top-level planning authorities of the Reich
at a time when it had become apparent that a speedy termination of hostilities
could no longer be confidently expected and that the war was, in fact, a fight
for the vital foundations of the entire nation. In this connection, I should
like to draw your attention particularly to the letter, dated 8 November 1940,
written by General von Hanneken of the Reich Ministry of Economics to the
defendant Dr. ter Meer, which has been submitted by the prosecution as Exhibit
1408 (Doc. NI-11781). The defendant Duerrfeld took no part in the
selection of the site for the fourth buna plant, the construction of which had
definitely been decided upon on 2 November 1940. But the evidence submitted by
the prosecution, and especially the reports of the defendant, Dr. Ambros, have
shown how completely erroneous is the statement made in the indictment that the
presence of a concentration camp in the vicinity of Auschwitz was a decisive
factor in the choice of a site for the new plant. In this connection, I should
like to draw the attention of the Court to the contents of Prosecution Exhibits
|
353 |
. 
