 |
had to go through all of the horrors of a concentration camp under
the supervision of the SS before they finally landed at the firm of Krupp. That
these persecutees had been arrested and confined without trial for no reason
other than that they were Jews is common knowledge and in fact not
controverted. The subject is dealt with exhaustively by the judgment of the IMT
and there is no need to add anything to what is there said to show the
unspeakable horrors to which these unfortunate people were subjected. However,
in the present connection, one or two excerpts from the judgment are pertinent.
It is there recited that “the Nazi persecution of Jews in Germany before
the war, severe and repressive as it was, cannot compare, however, with the
policy pursued during the war in the occupied territories."¹
After
referring to the fact that in the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for
the “final solution” of the Jewish question in all Europe, the
judgment² continues: “Part of the ‘final solution’ was the
gathering of Jews from all German occupied Europe in concentration camps. Their
physical condition was the test of life and death. All who were fit to work
were used as slave laborers in the concentration camps * * *.” The
“final solution” meant extermination.
Under the facts of this
case it is obvious from what has been said as to the law that the employment of
these concentration camp inmates was also a violation of international law in
several different particulars.
In this connection it is argued that the
defendants had scant knowledge of the persecution of the Jews by Nazi leaders.
This can be justly characterized as no more than a gesture. The fact was common
knowledge not only in Germany but throughout the civilized world. Whether this
was true in all the horrifying and gruesome details is immaterial to the legal
question.
Moreover, apart from the fact that the Krupp activities at
Auschwitz hereinabove detailed gave ample opportunity to know the true
situation, there is evidence introduced by the defendants which directly
refutes the contention that the officials of the firm lacked knowledge of the
persecution of the Jews on racial grounds. Among other items is the affidavit
of Mickenschreiber. It was offered along with other documents to show that the
officials of the firm were not in accord with the attitude of the Nazi regime
toward Jews. But it shows also that without doubt they knew of that abominable
policy as early as 1936. The affidavit shows this so conclusively that it is
worthwhile to quote from at some length. |
__________
¹ Trial of the Major War Criminals,
op. cit. supra, volume I. page
249.
²
Ibid., p. 251.
1434 |
. 
