Follow

• 

  Approach the evidence

  Paul M. Hebert

  In this document Paul M. Hebert puts forth the idea that acts that might be innocent in isolation and may be part of the normal jobs of the defendants, will when taken as a whole make the defendants guilt of the charges against them. The second section of the document points out that Hitler would have been unable to carry out his plans for domination with out the cooperation of the industrial concerns of Germany. The Farben combine had the technical knowledge to make these plans successful and provided that knowledge to the German military.

• 

  Count one notes

  Paul M. Hebert

  In this memo Paul M. Hebert comments on the bearing the ruling of the International Military Tribunals have on their tribunals evaluation of the charges and evidence before them. These notes primarily deal with the charges brought in Count One of the indictment.

• 

  Degrees of knowledge

  Paul M. Hebert

  In this document Paul M. Hebert describes what amount of knowledge of Hitler's plans to wage an aggressive war is necessary to find the defendants guilty of that charge. Hebert gives some hypothetical examples to show the degree of knowledge that would not be sufficient. Hebert ultimately endorses the standard of knowledge used by the International Military Tribunal as the defining standard to be used in the I. G. Farben case.

• 

  Dissenting Opinion

  Paul M. Hebert

  In this document Paul M. Hebert dissented from the majority conclusions made in the Judgment by Military Tribunal IV on Count Three of the Indictment USA vs. Carl Krauch. Under this count all defendants were charged with: commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity through participation in enslavement and forced labor of the civilian population of countries and territories occupied or controlled by Germany; the enslavement of concentration-camp inmates, including Germans, within Germany; and the use of prisoners of war in war operations and work having a direct relation to war operations. Additionally, defendants were charged with the mistreatment, terrorization, torture and murder of enslaved persons. Paul M. Hebert strongly opposed the majority decision to apply the defense of necessity in the cases of fifteen members of I.G. Farben Vorstand: Schmitz, Schnitzler, Buergin, Haefliger, Ilgner, Jaehne, Oster, Gajewski, Hoerlein, Knieriem, Schneider, Kuehne, Lautenschlaeger, Mann, and Wurster. Although Paul M. Hebert recognizes that the utilization of slave labor was imposed on I.G. Farben plants by the strict labor policy of the Reich, he argued that this fact does not relieve the defendants of the moral responsibility to diverge from governmental solutions. Paul M. Hebert stated that the utilization of slave labor at I.G. Farben plats was generally known and accepted as Farben policy by all of the defendants, and as such was approved as only mean to maintain war production. For this reason, Paul M. Hebert argued that all defendants that were members of the I.G. Farben Vorstand who set this policy should be found guilty on Count Three of the indictment as recognized in Control Council Law No. 10.

• 

  Draft dissent

  Paul M. Hebert

  A draft of the introduction to Judge Hebert's dissenting opinion with the verdict of USA v. Carl Krauch et al.

• 

  Evidence of knowledge

  Paul M. Hebert

  One page outline of notes relating certain sections of defendant's testimony that deal with their knowledge of Hitler's plans for an aggressive war before 1939. They tend to show that Farben was an active participant in these planning sessions and had fore knowledge.

• 

  Farben's economic motives

  Paul M. Hebert

  This is an eight page discussion, on note paper, of I.G. Farben's economic motives for entering into alliance with the Nazis. Judge Hebert says that "the coming program of autarchy, military economy and rearmament fitted in admirably with the abilities and plans of Farben for development of the chemical industry."

• 

  Index card

  Paul M. Hebert

  Small index card used by Paul M. Hebert to cite a letter written in 1938 by Carl Krauch concerning mustard gas production in Farben facilities.

• 

  Jottings: January 12, 1948

  Paul M. Hebert

  A collection of memoranda outlining Judge Hebert's thoughts on the primary issues presented in the case against the defendants. The first section deals with corporate responsibility, the extent of Farben's operations, the issues in defining a crime against peace, the differences between civilian and military personnel, the nature of conspiracy and the nature of the war between Germany and the United Kingdom and France. The second section (dated 12/1/1948) is a memorandum supporting the position that the defendants knowledge of Hitler's plans could not be proven. The third section argues that international law in these matters has been set by the judgement of the IMT. (International Miltary Tribunal). The fourth memorandum describes what subjective knowledge can be inferred to the defendants.

• 

  Loose ends

  Paul M. Hebert

  This file is a schedule of several defendants' presentations of evidence. It is a summary of "loose ends" in the schedule. There are two classes of "loose ends"; those provided for in the schedule, and those accumulated after the original schedule. Hebert also specifies the documents that each defendant presents as evidence.

• 

  No immunity

  Paul M. Hebert

  This is one page of notes that Paul M. Hebert used when composing his dissenting opinion. The gist is that if the findings of the IMT are to have any standing in international law that private citizens can have no immunity if the participated in a significant way to the planning and preparation of a war of aggression.

• 

  Notes on ter Meer testimony

  Paul M. Hebert

  A series of notes summarizing the testimony of the defendant Fritz ter Meer on various aspects of interest to the Tribunal during its deliberations. Among the matters touched on in the notes are ter Meer's visit to the Auschwitz facilty and his knowledge of poison gas prodcution.

• 

  Participating in the crime of waging an aggressive war

  Paul M. Hebert

  In this document, Judge Hebert likens knowledgable participation in an aggressive war to a criminal act, namely murder. He states that the law must function as a deterrent to those willing and able to participate in such an aggressive war. Thus, in participating in those acts, one forfeits the protection that international law would classicly provide. Hebert writes how the participation in an act that may likely cause severe harm or damage to others is a crime, regarless of the intent of the perpetrator to cause harm. He argues that this principle can be justly applied to the Nuremberg trials, and in fact, greater care needs to be taken in judging war acts because the cost to society, and to world security, is greater.

• 

  Perfectly obvious

  Paul M. Hebert

  This short document gives Judge Hebert's opinion that it would have been impossible for people with positions such as those held by the defendants could have not failed to guess Hitler's intentions.

• 

  Plough new ground

  Paul M. Hebert

  A note from Paul M. Hebert written in response to a query from Alternate Judge Clarence F. Merrill asking for clarification as to which parts of the judgment of the IMT are applicable in their deliberations of Count One. Hebert concludes that they are bound only by the standards set forth under Mil. Ord. 7.