 |
“The defendants lived within
the Reich. The Reich, through its hordes of enforcement officials and secret
police, was always 'present,' ready to go into instant action and to mete out
savage and immediate punishment against anyone doing anything that could be
construed as obstructing or hindering the carrying out of governmental
regulations or decrees.”¹ |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| |
“In this case, in our
opinion, the testimony establishes a factual situation which makes clearly
applicable the defense of necessity as urged on behalf of the defendants
Steinbrinck, Burkart, Kaletsch, and
Terberger.”² |
| Tribunal IV convicted two defendants (Weiss and Flick), however,
under the slave-labor count. The basis for these convictions was the active
solicitation of Weiss, with the knowledge and approval of Flick, of an increase
in their firm's freight-car production, beyond the requirements of the
government’s quota, and the initiative of Weiss in securing an allocation
of Russian prisoners of war for use in the work of manufacturing such increased
quotas. With respect to these activities the Tribunal concluded that Weiss and
Flick had deprived themselves of the defense of necessity,
saying: |
| |
“The war effort required all
persons involved to use all facilities to bring the war production to its
fullest capacity. The steps taken in this instance, however, were initiated not
in governmental circles but in the plant management. They were not taken as a
result of compulsion or fear, but admittedly for the purpose of keeping the
plant as near capacity production as possible.” |
| We have also reviewed the judgment of the General Tribunal of the
Military Government of the French Zone of Occupation in Germany, dated 30 June
1948, in which Hermann Roechling was convicted of participation in the
slave-labor program. That judgment³ recites that said Roechling was
“present at several secret conferences with Goering in 1936 and
1937;” that in 1940 he “accepted the positions of plenipotentiary
general for the steel plants of the departments of the Moselle and of
Meurthe-et-Moselle SA;” that, “stepping out of his role of
industrialist, after having demanded high administrative and leading positions
concerning the steel exploitation of the Reich,” he became “dictator
for iron and steel in Germany and the occupied countries;” that in 1943
said Roechling also “lavished advice on the Nazi government in order to
utilize the inhabitants of occupied countries for the war effort of the
Reich;” that he “sent to the Nazi leaders |
__________
¹ Ibid., page
1201.
² Ibid.,
page 1202.
³ See
U. S. vs. Ernst von Weizsaecker et al., volume XIV, this series
(Appendix B - "The Roechling Case"), page., 1061-1197.
1178 |
. 
