 |
IV. ORGANIZATION OF THE
I.G. FARBEN KONZERN |
| |
| A. Introduction |
| |
All of the defendants were charged with criminal conduct by "acting
through the instrumentality of Farben and otherwise" under the four main counts
of the indictment. (See pars. 1, 86, 120, and 146 of the indictment, sec. I.)
These four counts alleged crimes against peace, spoliation, slave labor, and a
common plan of conspiracy to commit crimes against peace. The specifications of
the alleged criminal conduct often named one or more defendants as having
engaged in particular acts, but the basic theory of the indictment was that all
the defendants were jointly responsible for the acts of the I.G. Farben Konzern
because of their related positions and functions as leaders of the Konzern.
Count five, in charging a common plan to commit crimes against peace, alleged
that the defendants "are individually responsible for their own acts and for
all acts committed by any persons in the execution of such common plan or
conspiracy" (par. 146).
Under these circumstances, the opposing parties
at the trial both devoted a very considerable amount of argument and proof to
the organizational structure of Farben, the manner in which Farben operated,
the German law on corporate organizations, the position and function of the
individual defendants, and related matters. (See, for example, the early part
of the opening statement of the prosecution in sec. I B, above, and the closing
statement on behalf of all defendants by Dr. von Metzler concerning crimes
against peace in sec. XI E, vol. VIII, this series). The defense argued that an
individual defendant should not be held responsible for acts on behalf of
Farben which took place outside the special sphere of delegated responsibility
of the individual defendant. The judgment of the Tribunal contains a
description of "Farben as an Instrumentality" which discusses, as well, "the
principal positions held by the several defendants in the firm, together with
their affiliations with various political, governmental, technical and
professional groups" (sec. XIII, vol. VIII, this series). Part II of the
concurring opinion of Judge Hebert on counts one and |
378 |
. 
