 |
find that the members of the TEA, by voting appropriations for
construction and housing at Auschwitz and other Farben plants, can be
considered as knowingly authorizing and approving the course of criminal
conduct which we have found to be present in the cases of the individual
defendants whose guilt we have already found to be established.
Concerning the charges of mistreatment of forced foreign workers and
prisoners of war in the Farben plants of the various works combines, much
conflicting evidence has been presented. Its evaluation impels us to find that
as a general policy Farben attempted to carry out humane practices in the
treatment of its workers and that these individual defendants did what was
possible under then existing conditions to alleviate the miseries inherent in
the system of slave labor. Huge sums were expended for housing and a variety of
welfare purposes. There were many isolated abuses of individual workers but it
has not been shown that such acts were countenanced by any of these defendants
nor can it be said that they went beyond what the regulations required in the
treatment or discipline of the workers. Here again it must be recalled that the
Gestapo was ever on hand to enforce compliance by an employer with what the
system demanded. At the Landsberg plant, one of the units under the
jurisdiction of the defendant Gajewski, a number of prisoners of war died
during the course of their work. We do not consider that the proof establishes
that this resulted from mistreatment by Farben officials. The military
authorities were largely responsible for the food, treatment and allocation to
duties of prisoners of war. The proof presented on this matter is consistent
with the inference that the prisoners of war were in a poor state of health
when they arrived and that this was the cause of their deaths rather than work
or ill-treatment. Nor may we, in justice, hold the defendant Buergin
responsible for the two criminal atrocities occurring at the Bitterfeld plant.
On one occasion a Russian prisoner was shot attempting to escape confinement.
There is no showing that Buergin had any connection with the incident or that
he countenanced or approved any such action. Buergin was not at the Bitterfeld
plant on the occasion when the Gestapo publicly hanged five Russians at one of
the camps to intimidate the other workers. The record shows that the plant
management protested the contemplated action of the Gestapo and withheld, at no
little risk, its cooperation. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution to
establish initiative on the part of individual plant leaders in obtaining and
using compulsory labor has been carefully considered by the Tribunal. Without
reviewing each item of evidence in detail it is our conclusion that the action
of the defendants in this regard has not been established beyond reasonable
doubt. |
1194 |
. 
