 |
is functioning. This regulation as set forth in the Hague Convention
therefore gives the occupying power the right and the duty to take over the
economic enterprises of the country, and to administrate the country under
suitable economic conditions. This fact becomes all the more clear, if one
considers the example set by the numerous industrial plants which, owing to the
war have either been deserted by the owners or brought to a standstill. It
seems inconsistent that the principle laid down in Article 43, frequently
overlaps those set forth in Articles 52 and 53. For the prosecution desires to
define the ban of taking an interest in an economic enterprise, while Article
43 to which the prosecution paid no attention, contains the obligation and thus
the justification to intervene in the economic life of a country. It is evident
that it is not easy to find the correct limitations, and it is even more
evident how critical it is to demand that a private industrialist recognize and
decide upon the limitations of these principles.
The events in
Germany after the end of World War II prove how difficult it is to
recognize these limitations correctly. In the course of the trial, or rather in
my closing brief, I shall show that no doubt exists that the Hague Convention
should be applied in occupied Germany, even though General Clay as a non-lawyer
and General Taylor as a lawyer are of a different opinion. But that which has
occurred in Europe since May 1945 contradicts the Hague Convention, and even if
the latter is not interpreted so literally and inflexibly as the prosecution
desires. In the guiding principles for the Combined Chiefs of Staff for General
Dwight D. Eisenhower (JCS 1067) issued in April 1945 the following ruling is
made: |
| |
“No step to be taken towards
economic rehabilitation, nor that which might be intended to maintain and
strengthen the German economy.” [Emphasis
supplied.] |
| |
| This clear instruction for the administration of the occupied German
territories likewise presents an obvious violation of Article 43 of the Hague
Convention just cited. The development in Germany, and I shall prove this,
indicates exactly the same factor, that is to say, the violation of Article 43
and of Articles 46 56 of the Hague Convention. Hundreds of factories were
dismantled, machines removed, regardless whether they are essential for the
maintaining of the German peace economy or not. Vast numbers of patents,
inventions, and manufacturing processes were taken away, and all this occurred
without any approval or the indemnification of the owner. |
203 |
. 
