 |
the Baltic countries. This company did not remove any merchandise,
machines, or other articles from the eastern areas. Nothing whatever has been
taken from Russia through Mann's activities. On the contrary, it was owing to
him that Russia received badly needed pharmaceutical supplies and other I.G.
Farben products. All that I shall substantiate by producing documents and
witnesses.
Furthermore, it is alleged that my client participated in
the looting of France; to be accurate, in the case of Rhône-Poulenc. For
this transaction, Mann assumes responsibility. I shall prove that from the
agreements made by my client with Rhône-Poulenc, considerable advantages
accrued to the latter. In my argumentation, I shall prove that the negotiations
which were conducted resulted in arrangements for a term of 50 years based on
strict reciprocity. On the part of the IG, concessions of the utmost importance
were made to the French partner, such as were made only in one case in the
previous history of the Bayer corporation — that is, in the case of
Winthrop in the U.S. Instead of gaining control of the French pharmaceutical
industry, as the prosecution alleges, the IG, through the negotiations
conducted by my client, placed the pharmaceutical business in France,
previously transacted by Farben, under the control of a French-operated company
through the Theraplix agreement. The I.G. Farben waived its right, in favor of
the firm of Rhône-Poulenc, to continue its business in France, which it
had operated successfully for decades; and this at a time when such a
concession could be effected only with the utmost difficulty under the existing
Nazi rule. I shall prove that through this contract with Rhône-Poulenc,
the sovereignty of this French firm was in no way limited.
It will be
my task to present to the Court the actual events; and to point out and prove
that the results of these agreements were exceptionally favorable to the French
partner. Then Your Honors will realize that the intentions of my client, as far
as these and other business transactions are concerned, were not as one might
gather from the indictment, and particularly from the speech of the prosecutor
while introducing his exhibits. The writ of the French court, introduced by the
prosecution, concerning the nullification of the contracts signed with
Rhône-Poulenc, is not to be taken as a precedent. We do not know the
legal provisions and the particular circumstances according to which the French
decision was made. None of the defendants was present at the French trial, none
of them was given a legal hearing or could produce counterevidence.
The
fundamental change in the over-all situation may now be |
336 |
. 
