Glossary

Move the mouse pointer over a red word in the main text, to view the glossary entry for this word.

Survivors of the Buna/Monowitz Concentration Camp as Witnesses in the I.G. Farben Trial

In United States v. I.G. Farben, both the prosecution and the defense counsel teams called survivors of the Buna/Monowitz concentration camp as witnesses. Of the 19 survivors of Buna/Monowitz under examination in the main trial (August 14, 1947, to July 30, 1948), 16 were witnesses for the prosecution and three for the defense. The examination of a witness was based on the affidavit that either prosecution counsel or defense counsel had submitted as an exhibit.

 

The examination of the victim witnesses followed established rules of procedure. Witnesses for the prosecution were first asked by the American prosecutors whether they wanted to correct or add to their affidavit. In a few cases, the witness was directly examined by the prosecution counsel. Then the defense attorneys had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the basis of his or her assertions under oath.

 

The strategy of the defense throughout was to deconstruct the statements made in the affidavits, to relativize their probative force. I.G. Farben’s coresponsibility for the crimes committed in the Buna/Monowitz concentration camp and on the I.G. plant grounds was contested persistently, and emphasis was placed on a functional powerlessness of I.G. Farben where the SS was concerned. The victim witnesses in their affidavits had given figures for the strength of the camp, the sick-leave rate, the length of stay in the prisoner infirmary, the selections, and so forth, and now the defense attempted to challenge the witnesses’ reliability and credibility by confronting them with contradictory or divergent statements and documents. The witnesses called by the prosecuting body included a total of seven “old” prisoners, who had been among the first inmates of the Buna/Monowitz concentration camp. Consequently these were survivors who were quite familiar with the history of the camp and whose functionary positions (Gustav Herzog was a “roll-call clerk,” among other things; Bertold Epstein was a prisoner physician; Felix Rausch was a prisoner clerk in the prisoner infirmary; Ervin Schulhof was a prisoner clerk in the Labor Deployment Department) enabled them to give exact particulars of the happenings in the camp. Other witnesses, such as Norbert Wollheim, Isaac Spetter, Jan Stern, Arnest Tauber, and Noack Treister, had been forced to work as slave laborers in the work detachments on the I.G. plant grounds, and they described in detail the conduct of the firm’s master craftsmen and executives like Walther Dürrfeld and Max Faust.

 

The three witnesses for the defense only partially fulfilled the expectations of the defense attorneys. The “criminal prisoner” Fritz Schermuly, born in Munich in 1897 and taken from Gusen, a subcamp of Mauthausen, to the Buna/Monowitz concentration camp in April 1943, had stated in his affidavit that he and other I.G. Farben forced laborers had regained their physical health because of the relatively good fare in Buna/Monowitz, and that Dr. Walther Dürrfeld ”was known among the prisoners as their good angel.”[1]

 

The prosecuting body, in its cross-examination, limited itself to pointing out that the criminal career of the defense witness was not exactly a short one. The witness Martin Nestler, too, had an extensive police record in his past. By 1933, as the prosecution charged in the cross-examination, he had been convicted solely in 11 cases, mostly involving fraud. In the direct examination by Dr. Hans Seidl, the defense attorney for Dr. Walther Dürrfeld, Nestler painted the Buna/Monowitz camp in the most glowing colors. The food was very good, he said, and each prisoner had his own bed, usually equipped with quilts. Concerning abuses on the plant grounds, Nestler could report only that SS men and Kapos, but not civilians, had struck prisoners. As for selections, he allegedly heard of them only after he was liberated.

 

The Jewish survivor Adolf Taub,[2] whose mother and sister were murdered at Auschwitz, confirmed under cross-examination what witnesses for the prosecution had expressed: the managers’ awareness of the gassings in Birkenau, the high death rates in certain detachments, the wretched quality of the Buna soup.

 

Overall, it can be determined that the attempt of defense counsel to produce proof that the Buna/Monowitz concentration camp was an ordinary labor camp, that the work on the plant grounds was regulated and not really arduous, and that the SS bore sole responsibility was a failure because of the statements of the survivors and the overwhelming evidence of the documents provided by the prosecution. That led the American military tribunal to the following realization in its judgment: “The laborers made available by the Auschwitz concentration camp lived and worked” in I.G. Auschwitz “under the shadow of liquidation.”[3]

(WR; transl. KL)



Sources

Gregoire M. Afrine, affidavit, June 5, 1947, NI-7184. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), pp. 73–82.

Gregoire M. Afrine, hearing of witness, November 14, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 11, pp. 3855–3873.

Charles Sigismund Bendel, hearing of witness in Trial of Dr. Tesch et al., British Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals, Hamburg, March 2, 1946, NI-11953. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 83 (e), pp. 155–164.

Charles Bendel, hearing of witness, March 18, 1948. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 010, Vol. 27, pp. 9586–9618.

Berthold Epstein, affidavit, March 3, 1947, NI-5847. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), pp. 168–170.

Berthold Epstein, hearing of witness, November 18, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 12, pp. 3986–3992.

Kai Feinberg, affidavit, March 13, 1947, NI-4822. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), pp. 40–42.

Kai Feinberg, hearing of witness, November 14, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 11, pp. 3810–3815.

Gustav Herzog, affidavit, October 21, 1947, NI-12069. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 79 (e), pp. 42–46.

Gustav Herzog, hearing of witness, November 12, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 11, pp. 3621–3639.

Ludwig Hess, affidavit, January 23, 1947, NI-4191. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), pp. 116–118.

Ludwig Hess, hearing of witness, November 12, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 11, pp. 3641–3659.

Martin Nestler, hearing of witness, April 20, 1948. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 12, Vol. 33, pp. 11965–11997.

Philippe Pfeffer, affidavit, November 13, 1947, NI-12384. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), addendum, 209, 4 pp.

Philippe Pfeffer, hearing of witness, November 17, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 11, pp. 3907–3920.

Felix Rausch, affidavit, November 11, 1947, NI-12365. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), addendum, 207, 7 pp.

Felix Rausch, hearing of witness, November 13 and 14, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 11, pp. 3753–3778.

Fritz Schermuly, affidavit, September 16, 1947, Dürrfeld Documents No. 402. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, reel 083, DDB (e) Dürrfeld, Vol. 6, pp. 1–6.

Fritz Schermuly, hearing of witness, May 12, 1948. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 14, Vol. 40, pp. 14492–14507.

Ervin Schulhof, affidavit, June 21, 1947, NI-7967. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 79 (e), pp. 7–9.

Ervin Schulhof, hearing of witness, November 12, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 11, pp. 3600–3611.

Isaac Spetter, affidavit, November 13, 1947, NI-12383. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), addendum, 208, 4 pp.

Isaac Spetter, hearing of witness, November 17, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 11, pp. 3890–3906.

Jan Stern, affidavit, May 1, 1947, NI-4828. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), pp. 125–128.

Jan Stern, hearing of witness, November 12, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 11, pp. 3663–3678.

Adolf Taub, affidavit, August 11, 1947, Dürrfeld Documents No. 892. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, reel 083, DDB (e) Dürrfeld, Vol. 4, pp. 20–24.

Adolf Taub, hearing of witness, May 4, 1948. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 013, Vol. 37, pp. 13480–13489.

Arnest Tauber, affidavit, May 3, 1947, NI-4829. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), pp. 111–115.

Arnest Tauber, hearing of witness, November 7 and 12, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 10 and 11, pp. 3535–3596.

Noack Treister, affidavit, March 3, 1947, NI-4827. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), pp. 160–162, and PDB 79 (e), pp. 1–3.

Noack Treister, hearing of witness, February 26, 1948. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 008, Vol. 22, pp. 7697–7732.

Rudolf Vitek, affidavit, March 3, 1947, NI-4830. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), pp. 43–46.

Rudolf Vitek, hearing of witness, November 18, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 12, pp. 3957–3985.

Robert Elie Waitz, affidavit, November 12, 1947, NI-12373. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), addendum, 213, 17 pp.

Robert Elie Waitz, hearing of witness, November 14, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 11, pp. 3779–3808.

Norbert Wollheim, affidavit, June 3, 1947, NI-9807. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, PDB 75 (e), pp. 108–110.

Norbert Wollheim, hearing of witness, November 13, 1947. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, Prot. (e), reel 005, Vol. 11, pp. 3700–3718.

 

Literature

Das Urteil im I.G.-Farben-Prozess. Der vollständige Wortlaut. Offenbach am Main: Bollwerk 1948.

[1] Fritz Schermuly, affidavit, September 16, 1947, Dürrfeld Documents No. 402. Archive of the Fritz Bauer Institute, Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, Case VI, reel 083, DDB (e) Dürrfeld, Vol. 6, pp. 1–6, here p. 2.

[2] The Visual History Archive interview with Adolphe Taub can be viewed in the workroom of the Wollheim Memorial: Adolphe Taub, oral history interview [Eng.], August 14, 1996. USC Shoah Foundation Institute, Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Archive, Code 18521.

[3]Das Urteil im I.G.-Farben-Prozess. Der vollständige Wortlaut (Offenbach am Main: Bollwerk, 1948), p. 127. (Translated by KL)