 |
| After deposing that one Robert Waller had been in the service of the
firm as an electrical engineer for 20 years, the affiant continues (Ihn 51,
Def. Ex. 2767): |
| |
“From 1936 on, his working
associates brought pressure to bear on the firm, because of his non-Aryan
descent (Mr. Waller is Jewish) with the aim of having Waller dismissed. Mr. Ihn
did not yield to the demands of the employees, however. At his behest Mr.
Waller was given protection by designated persons, who always intervened on his
behalf, shielded him in the campaign of persecution against him, and later
provided him with a special place of work apart from the other workers.
Furthermore, thorough-going efforts were made to find a position abroad for
him. On 9 November 1938, the day of the general persecution of the Jews in
Germany, the employees as well as the Vertrauensrat [Employees’
Council] at the time categorically demanded the immediate dismissal without
notice of Mr. Waller. According to this there was no longer any possibility of
retaining Mr. Waller. However, without the persons in power knowing of it, by
order of Mr. Ihn, Mr. Waller was paid a lump sum, corresponding to his salary
which he would have received had he been given regular notice (about 8
months’ salary), in order to enable him to emigrate, as he was
contemplating doing. Moreover, after the war the personnel manager made amends
to Mr. Waller, in a manner which met his satisfaction, for the wrong done to
him at the instigation of working associates.” |
| |
| NECESSITY AS A DEFENSE |
| |
The real defense in this case particularly as to count three, is
that known as necessity. It is contended that this arose primarily from the
fact that production quotas were fixed by the Speer Ministry; that it was
obligatory to meet the quotas and that in order to do so it was necessary to
employ prisoners of war, forced labor, and concentration camp inmates made
available by government agencies because no other labor was available in
sufficient quantities and, that had the defendants refused to do so, they would
have suffered dire consequences at the hands of the government authorities who
exercised rigid supervision over their activities in every respect.
The
defense of necessity was held partially available to the defendants in the case
of the United States of America vs. Flick, et al., decided by Tribunal IV.*
There, as here, the defendants were industrialists employing prisoners of war,
forced labor, and |
__________
* United States vs.
Friedrich Flick, et al., Case 5, Volume VI, judgment, this series.
1435 |
. 
