 |
[affi...] davits, and some testimony in an attempt to controvert the
overwhelming weight of the prosecution’s evidence. I do not consider that
this evidence presented by the defense is sufficiently credible to raise a
reasonable doubt on the subject of mistreatment.
The contemporaneous
documents introduced by the defense fall far short of detracting from the
prosecution's proof. On cross-examination by the prosecution, in a sampling
process, the defense affiants who were leading employees of Farben at the
Auschwitz site made numerous damaging admissions seriously detracting from the
weight and credibility of the previous testimony given in their affidavits.
Defense affiants who were called for cross-examination by the prosecution fell
into three categories — those from whom testimony corroborating the
damaging evidence of the prosecution was obtained on cross-examination; those
whose credibility was completely destroyed on cross-examination; and those
whose affidavits were withdrawn by the defense, in some instances, even after
appearance at Nuernberg. I conclude that very little weight, is to be attached
to the affidavits introduced by the defense. Unless we are to resort to
weighing the evidence by the bulk and number of affidavits, the prosecution has
established Farben’s participation in the mistreatment of the
concentration camp inmates at Auschwitz in an aggravated degree. At the very
minimum it was the responsibility of defendant Schneider and the members of the
Vorstand shown to have visited Auschwitz to have succeeded in correcting these
conditions. This these defendants did not do, and they should be held
criminally responsible for these aggravations of the crime of
enslavement, in addition to their responsibility for participation in the
utilization of slave labor.
No useful purpose would be served in
an analysis of the evidence in detail as applied to each individual defendant.
The guilt varies in degree with each defendant and his functions in Farben must
be considered. It is untenable, however, in my opinion, to say that Schmitz,
the Chairman of Farben’s Vorstand, bears none of the responsibility for
Farben’s participation in the slave-labor program, including occurrences
at Auschwitz, or that Schneider, Farben’s Main Plant Leader in the labor
field is not responsible. International law cannot possibly be considered as
operating in a complete vacuum of legal irresponsibility — in which crime
on such a broad scale can be actively participated in by a corporation
exercising the power and influence of Farben without those who are responsible
for participating in the policies being liable therefor. What is true of
Schmitz, Chairman of the Board, is true of the other managers of Farben in
varying degrees.
Auschwitz has been chosen in this summation as it is
the most aggravated of Farben’s many participations in the slave-labor
program. In such treatment of the evidence, it must be noted that the various
|
1324 |
. 
