|
VIII. PLUNDER AND SPOLIATION COUNT TWO |
|
|
A. Introduction |
|
All of the defendants were charged with criminal participation "in
the plunder of public and private property, exploitation, spoliation, and outer
offenses against property in countries and territories which came under the
belligerent occupation of Germany in the course of its invasions and aggressive
wars" (par. 86 of the indictment). There were thirty paragraphs setting forth
specifications concerning alleged spoliation by Farben in six countries in the
chronological sequence in which they were occupied or invaded Austria,
Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, France, and Russia (pars. 87-118).
Count one of the indictment (crimes against peace) incorporated by
reference the specifications of count, two, alleging that the spoliative acts
were committed as an integral part of the planning, preparation,
initiation, and waging of wars of aggression and invasions of other
countries (par. 84a). Count five of the indictment (common plan or
conspiracy to commit crimes against peace) likewise incorporated by reference
the specifications of count two on the theory that the alleged spoliative acts
formed a part of said common plan or conspiracy (par. 147).
The charges of spoliation in Austria and Czechoslovakia under count two
were dismissed by an interlocutory ruling of the Tribunal on 12 April 1948
(subsec. B, below). Some of the evidence submitted in connection with these
charges as well as in connection with crimes against peace has been reproduced
in volume VII (sec. VII), The
New Order and Expansion into German Occupied Europe. No
further evidence on these charges is reproduced in the present section.
Nine of the defendants were convicted for spoliative acts in one or
more of three countries Poland, France, and Norway. None was found
guilty upon the charges of spoliation in Russia on the ground that the
plans laid by Farben did not reach the stage of completion, and we are unable
to say from the record before us that any individual defendant has been
sufficiently connected with completed acts of plunder in Russia within the
meaning of the Control Council Law.
The materials reproduced
below contain the interlocutory ruling dismissing the charges of spoliation as
to Austria and Czechoslovakia (subsec. B) ; selections from the evidence
concerning spoliation in Poland (subsec. C) ; selection from the evidence
concerning the Francolor case in France (sub sec. D) ; and selections from the
evidence, as well as argument and an interlocutory ruling, concerning all the
alleged spoliation in Russia (subsec. E). These cases illustrate quite fully
the various types of alleged spoliation, and space limitations have made it
unfeasible to include subsections concerning the other cases. |
1 |