 |
From the foregoing résumé of the evidence, it can be
said that I. G. Farben, in its substantial achievements constituting
participation in the rearmament of Germany and in a variety of related
activities, became integrated into the Nazi regime and made enormous
contributions to the German war effort. The record bears abundant proof of the
enthusiasm with which Farben undertook its portion of the task which was to
make Germany into an armed camp exceeding the strength of all its neighbors.
Despite the numerous decrees and regulations reflecting the regimentation of
the economy now relied upon as a defense, it is clear that Farben continued to
enjoy much freedom of action and initiative in its spheres of responsibility.
In the economic structure of the Nazi regime, Farben’s position was one of
top leadership. The record bears out the degree to which its activities became
inextricably intertwined with activities of the political and military
leadership. Farben collaborated in the economic regimentation without reserve.
It is equally clear that in return it expected the support of, and rewards
from, the regime. These circumstances tend to refute the defense of duress and
governmental coercion impliedly accepted as a defense in the judgment of the
Tribunal. This defense argument made insistently at the trial is at variance
with the true facts as revealed by overwhelming evidence showing sustained and
continued initiative by Farben in the armament field, and is further at
variance with numerous instances of Farben’s ability to influence the
course of events where such action was deemed to be in the interest either of
Farben or of the government program as a whole.
The irresponsible
character of the Nazi regime, its constant emphasis upon violence, and its
oppressive policies as the regime gained in strength, did not serve to deter
the top leadership of Farben in supporting the regime, and these factors
indicate how reprehensible was the course of action in which Farben, through
the acts of these principal defendants, was engaged. Such action, however, is
not criminal as constituting the crime against peace unless it can be said to
have been in violation of international law as recognized in Control Council
Law No. 10, the basic legal provision from which this Tribunal draws its
jurisdiction. |
| |
| III |
| |
| Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in pertinent part reads as
follows: |
| |
"1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime:
"(a) Crimes Against Peace. Initiation of invasions of
other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and
treaties, including but not limited to planning, preparation, initiation or
waging a war of aggression, or a war of violation of |
1298 |
. 
