 |
It is contended that Schneider, as the Chief Plant Leader of Farben,
bears special responsibility in the field of labor within Farben and that he
may be held criminally liable for the employment and mistreatment of workers.
As we analyze the position of Schneider it is our conclusion that his functions
did not supersede the authority of the local plant leaders. He was a general
coordinator in the field of housing and welfare matters affecting more than one
plant, but there is not sufficient evidence to establish that he exercised
initiative in the procurement or allocation of labor within Farben. We have
considered evidence as to the Leuna plant, of which Schneider was also the
leader, and cannot conclude that it proves initiative of a character to deprive
him of the defense of necessity which has otherwise been established.
It is our conclusion and we hereby find and adjudge that the defendants
Gajewski, Hoerlein, Buergin, Jaehne, Kuehne, Lautenschlaeger, Schneider, and
Wurster are Not Guilty under count three of the indictment.
Remaining Defendants. There can be no doubt that the defendant
Schmitz, Chairman of the Vorstand, and the other Vorstand members not
previously mentioned, namely, the defendants von Schnitzler, von Knieriem,
Haefliger, Ilgner, Mann, and Oster, all knew that slave labor was being
employed on an extensive scale under the forced labor program of the Third
Reich. Schmitz twice reported to the Aufsichtsrat on the manpower problems of
Farben pointing out that it had become necessary to make up for the shortage of
workers by employment of foreigners and prisoners of war. This evidence does
not establish that Farben was taking the initiative in the illegal employment
of prisoners of war. Neither Schmitz nor any of the members of the Vorstand
here under discussion were shown to have ever exercised functions in the
allocation or recruitment of compulsory labor. We cannot say that it has been
proved that initiative in the procurement of concentration-camp inmates was
ever exercised by these defendants. The proof does not establish to our
satisfaction that, in approving the Auschwitz project, the Vorstand considered
the employment of concentration-camp inmates to be one of the factors entering
into the decision for the location of the Auschwitz plant. It is not even
clearly established that they knew inmates would be so used at the time of
giving such approval. Their knowledge was necessarily less than that of members
of TEA as to whom we have likewise indicated, we consider the proof to be
insufficient. What we have said in general on the subject of mistreatment of
workers in the Farben plants applies equally to these defendants. We cannot
hold that they are responsible criminally for the occasional acts of
mistreatment of labor employed in the various Farben plants nor do we
|
1195 |
. 
