 |
| REDIRECT EXAMINATION |
| |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| |
DR. HENZE (counsel for defendant Oster) : During the
cross-examination, minutes were submitted of the 22d meeting of the Commercial
Committee [Pros. Ex. 2111] and paragraph 6 was pointed out which bears the
heading, “Employment of Foreigners by IG.”
It says: There is
agreement that in principle no foreigners shall be employed at the central
agencies. As far as such foreigners are concerned who are to be trained in the
use of our products, each case will be decided on its merits as to whether
employment is possible.”
Did you actually execute this decision at
the Nitrogen Syndicate?
A. I do not think it was a decision. It only
reads here that there is an agreement. Moreover, I recall that starting from a
certain period, the employment of foreigners was regulated by the authorities.
I remember that I too had a foreigner in my office, a harmless individual who
was working on statistics. Consequently I was annoyed by the plant foreman
because he didn't like to see him there, but at any rate, I did retain that man
in the Department for Statistics. I only mention that to show that there must
have been some regulation which aimed at discontinuing the employment of
foreigners at the important positions of the plant. I do not know whether there
is any connection there, but it is possible I do not remember exactly this
particular meeting of the Commercial Committee |
| |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| |
| |
M. Farben, Dynamit A.G. (DAG), and the
Production of
Explosives |
| |
| I. INTRODUCTION |
| |
The indictment charged Farben with producing “huge quantities
of materials of war, including *** explosives” (par. 18), and alleged that
"Farben and its subsidiaries produced 84 percent of Germany's explosives and 70
percent of Germany's gunpowder from its nitrogen production" (par. 38).
Although there was some dispute at the trial concerning the extent of the
production of explosives by Farben, DAG, and other Farben subsidiaries, the
central issues with respect to this aspect of the case were the nature and
extent of Farben's control over DAG and the knowledge which the defendants had
of DAG's activities.
There was no substantial dispute about the
following related points: that Farben owned a majority of the voting stock of
DAG, |
1335 |
. 
