 |
As a general defense, it has been urged on behalf of Farben that its
action in acquiring a controlling interest in the plants, factories, and other
interests in occupied territories was designed to, and did, contribute to the
maintenance of the economy of those territories, and was assisted in
maintaining one of the objective aims envisaged by the Hague Regulations. In
this regard it is said that the action was in conformity with the obligation of
the occupying power to restore an orderly economy in the occupied territory. We
are unable to accept this defense. The facts indicate that the acquisitions
were not primarily for the purpose of restoring or maintaining the local
economy, but were rather to enrich Farben as part of a general plan to dominate
the industries involved, all as a part of Farben’s asserted “claim to
leadership.” If management had taken over in a manner that indicated a
mere temporary control or operation for the duration of the hostilities, there
might be some merit to the defense. The evidence, however, shows that the
interests which Farben proceeded to acquire, contrary to the wishes of the
owners, were intended to be permanent. The evidence farther establishes that
the action of the owners was involuntary, and that the transfer was not
necessary to the maintenance of the German army of occupation. As the action of
Farben in proceeding to acquire permanently property interests in the manner
generally outlined is in violation of the Hague Regulations, any individual who
knowingly participated in any such act of plunder or spoliation with the degree
of connection outlined in Article II, paragraph 2 of Control Council Law No.
10, is criminally responsible therefor.
We will now proceed briefly to
record our conclusions as to the major aspects of individual acts of spoliation
as established by the proof. |
| |
| A. Spoliation of Public and Private Property in
Poland |
| |
We find that the proof establishes beyond reasonable doubt that acts
of spoliation and plunder, constituting offenses against property as defined in
Control Council Law No. 10, were committed through Farben with respect to three
properties located in Poland.
On 7 September 1939, following the
invasion of Poland, the defendant von Schnitzler wired Director Krueger of
Farben’s Directorate in Berlin, requesting that the Reich Ministry of
Economics be informed of the ownership status and other facts concerning four
important Polish dyestuffs factories which, it was assumed, would fall into the
hands of the Germans within a few days thereafter [NI-8457, Pros. Ex. 1138]. The plant facilities
involved were those of Przemysl Chemiczny Boruta, S. A. Zgierz (Boruta),
Chemiczna Fabryka Wola Krzysztoporska (Wola), and Zaklady Chemiczne Winnicy
(Winnica). Boruta was the property of, and controlled by, the Polish State;
Wola |
1141 |
. 
