 |
Military Economy and Armament Office requesting release of machine
installations of the Simon Pit in Lorraine to be transferred to Gersthofen. The
purpose of the recommendation was to expand electric power needed for the
aluminum program, for which Krauch was responsible. This recommendation
received Keitel’s approval after consideration of the question of whether
there was any violation of international law involved. Keitel’s decision
was communicated to Krauch in favor of the, recommendation, and a subordinate
of Krauch's was placed in charge of the work. But the evidence does not
establish that the dismantling was actually carried out. Under these
circumstances, Krauch must be found Not Guilty likewise on this aspect of count
two.
In the case of spoliation in Norway, it appears that Krauch acted
as a technical advisor after the plans for expansion of light metals production
in Norway were under way. Prior to the initiation of the project he had a
conference with the defendant Buergin, in which he merely requested that Farben
indicate the extent of its desired participation in the project. It does not
appear that he took a prominent part in the negotiations, with reference either
to the establishment of Nordisk-Lettmetafl or the increase in the capital stock
of Norsk-Hydro. His connection with the Norway project, in the capacity of a
technical expert and adviser to Koppenberg on the type of installations to be
established, does not, in our opinion, constitute sufficient participation in
the exploitation of the resources of Norway to warrant a finding of guilt.
The evidence is also insufficient to convict Krauch insofar as alleged
spoliation in Russia is concerned. It does not appear that any plans to which
he may have been a party were carried out at all, nor that he was active in the
plunder and spoliation of Eastern Occupied Territory. His activity in
connection with the Continental Oil Company is not shown in detail. It must
have been on a limited basis, as he was only a member of the Aufsichtsrat,
appointed to represent Farben's relatively small capital investment in that
company. Under German law, membership on the Aufsichtsrat does not carry with
it responsibility for the actual management of the affairs of the corporation.
We find also that the evidence establishes no connection between the
charges of spoliation in France and the defendant Krauch. Krauch is acquitted
of all charges under count two of the indictment.
Schmitz. The
defendant Schmitz was chairman of the Vorstand, was primus inter pares
of its members, and was the chief financial officer of Farben. His position
necessitated that he be consulted on major matters of Farben policy in the
interim between meetings of the Vorstand. It is certain that his
responsibilities and his opportunities for knowledge went far beyond those of
an ordinary Vor- [...stand] |
1154 |
. 
