 |
[spolia...] tive acts committed by Farben. The proof as to the action
of Ambros is not convincing, even though he was frequently present at the
meetings referred to. We cannot find that the evidence connects him with the
illegal acquisition of property by Farben. It is true that he was pressing the
matter of the operation of the Russian buna plants by Farben experts and
demanded that Farben be given exclusive rights with regard to the Russian
plants and processes. However, as we have heretofore indicated, the evidence
does not establish any completed act of spoliation in Russia in which these
defendants were participants. The contemplated spoliation was prevented by the
defeat of the German Army in Russia. He was willing to exploit and acquire the
Russian plants for Farben, but these plans were not realized. We do not
consider that his activities in furthering production in the Francolor plants,
following their acquisition by Farben, warrant a finding of guilt.
Ambros is acquitted under count two of the indictment.
Buergin. The evidence establishes that the defendant Buergin was
specifically informed concerning plans to have the Boruta plant in Poland taken
over by a German corporation organized for that purpose, but he was not
personally a participant in the acquisition by Farben of this plant. It is not
clearly established that his trip to Poland was directly connected with any of
the acts of Farben in acquiring Polish property. The evidence of his report to
the Vorstand on the economic conditions and technical efficiency of the plants
is not directly linked with subsequent action by Farben. We likewise find that
the evidence is insufficient for a finding of guilty against Buergin on the
particulars of the indictment charging spoliation in Russia, France, and
Alsace-Lorraine.
In the case of Norway, however, Buergin bears special
responsibility. He initiated the recommendation for Farben's participation in
the aluminum project in Norway and has admitted that permanent participation
and acquisition of interests in the Norwegian production of light metals was
contemplated. Buergin wrote to Schmitz and ter Meer recommending participation
on a large scale in the plan to exploit the Norwegian resources in the interest
of light metals production for the Luftwaffe. The recited evidence establishes
his guilt under count two. But it does not appear that he was in any way
connected with the activities whereby the French shareholders were deprived of
their majority interest in Norsk-Hydro. For his participation in the first
aspect of spoliation in Norway we find that he is Guilty under count two of the
indictment.
Buetefisch. The defendant Buetefisch was a member of
Farben’s Vorstand, and as such is charged in the indictment with
participation in spoliation of the German-occupied territories of Poland,
France, Norway, and Soviet Russia. The evidence to support these allega-
[...tions] |
1161 |
. 
