 |
That is what it means. It is a purely obligational legal concept
which has nothing to do with property.
If I may summarize, the
prosecution cannot, even with the documents offered so far, maintain or prove
that all of the preliminary negotiations and discussions between the Reich and
Farben ever went beyond the stage of remote possibility, feelers, proposals,
et cetera, but that is not sufficient to give even the shadow or the
appearance of a crime such as plunder and spoliation.
For these
reasons, and in order to prevent unnecessary waste of time during the rest of
the trial, I raise the objection against the case of Synthese Kautschuk Ost G.
m. b. H. being treated as a charge any longer.
PRESIDING JUDGE SHAKE:
We will hear what the prosecution has to say.
MR. DUBOIS: The question
has been raised as to the relevancy of the documents contained in document
books 63 and 64, which deal primarily with the allegations contained in
paragraphs 114 through 118 of the indictment, under the heading: “Farben
in Russia.” It is perfectly true that the evidence which we have submitted
does not establish a completed act of plunder and spoliation committed within
the territory of the Soviet Union. In fact, as will be noted from the
indictment and the introductory remarks by Mr. Newman, we do not charge,
because we did not have such proof, that Farben actually acquired control of
the Russian chemical industry or any part thereof, as was charged in the case
of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, and France. We do not think it
necessary to argue at this point the question as to whether the language in
Control Council Law No. 10 covers an attempt to commit war crimes and crimes
against humanity. The provisions of paragraph 2 of Article II of Control
Council Law No. 10, particularly that provision which says that any person is
deemed to have committed a crime as defined in paragraph 1 if he was connected
with plans or enterprises involving its commission are, we believe,
sufficiently broad to cover the crime of attempt that we are familiar with in
Anglo-Saxon law. But without arguing this question at this time, the fact that
the plans and enterprises involving the commission of plunder and spoliation in
Russia did not succeed, does not in any event take away from the relevancy of
these documents, insofar as they show the motives of these defendants in the
over-all program to secure economic domination of Europe. The charges under
count two of the indictment concern the participation by the defendants in a
vast scheme of plundering property in occupied territories and countries, and
it is charged that the means adopted were intended to strengthen Germany in
waging its aggressive wars, to assure the subservience of the economy of the
conquered countries to |
287 |
. 
