5,913 research outputs found
Joseph M. Hebert, Saving the legacy: an oral history of Utah\u27s World War II veterans, ACCN 2070, American West Center, University of Utah
No full textTranscript (79 pages) of an interview by Winston P. Erickson with Joseph M. Hebert on April 4, 5, 11, and 18, 2000. This is from tape numbers 9, 10, 11, and 12 in the "Saving the Legacy Oral History ProjectHebert (b. 1924) was raised in Washington and Indiana. He was inducted into the Army Air Corps in February 1943 on "limited service." After basic training in Florida he was assigned to the 484th Bomb Group, where he met the rest of his crew--the pilot, copilot, navigator, and bombardier. Hebert was the aerial gunner, completing the crew of this B24 Liberator. He describes his training and overseas flight experiences including flying with the Tuskegee airmen. Other topics covered include his relationship with Colin Powell, flying out of Toretta Base in Italy, aircraft types and battle strategies, flak, bombing Ploesti, Major General Bill Keese, jet airplanes, and his postwar life. 79 pages
Degrees of knowledge
No full textIn this document Paul M. Hebert describes what amount of knowledge of Hitler\u27s 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.https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/nuremberg_docs/1016/thumbnail.jp
Plough new ground
No full textA 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.https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/nuremberg_docs/1020/thumbnail.jp
Jottings 12
No full textIn this note Paul M. Hebert predicts a defense motion that the defendants would claim that they did not attend any of the conferences listed and did not think that Hitler would actually start a war of aggression. Hebert cites a finding of the I.M.T. that defines Hitler\u27s peaceful conquest plans.https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/nuremberg_docs/1025/thumbnail.jp
Dissenting Opinion
No full textIn 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.https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/nuremberg_docs/1046/thumbnail.jp
Dissent on Defense Motion to Strike
No full textDissent from the finding of Tribunal VI regarding the affidavit of defendant Schmitz.
Paul M. Hebert Judge Military Tribunal VI
Clarence F. Merrell Alternate Judge Military Tribunal V
Dissenting Opinion on Count Three of the Indictment
No full textThe United States of America --against-- Carl Krauch, et al. Dissenting Opinion By Judge Paul M. Hebert on Count Three of the Indictmen
Conspiracy
No full textIn this document Paul M. Hebert defines the term conspiracy then outlines the early financial support given to Hitler by Farben.https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/nuremberg_docs/1041/thumbnail.jp
- …
