 |
the German Army. The Austin plant immediately upon the occupation in
June 1940 was taken over by the German Army. The German commander refused to
turn over the plant to Celap because it was Jewish owned, but upon the German
commander’s advice Rothschild assigned his stock to Celap, whereupon the
property was released to Celap on 19 October 1940. Celap remained in charge of
the property until 28 December 1940 at which time he was dismissed under the
provisions of the anti-Jewish decree issued by the chief of German military
government for France on 18 October 1940.
This decree required the
registration of Jewish enterprises and authorized the appointment of
administrators for such properties. The decree further provided that any
transfer of title to Jewish property after 23 May 1940 could be declared void
by the military governor. After Celap’s dismissal, a provisional
administrator was appointed to operate the plant. The owner Rothschild, who
remained in the unoccupied zone, opposed the appointment of the administrators
and at all times took the position that such appointments were illegal.
In June 1942 an offer was made by the Krupp firm to Maurice Erhard,
administrator of the property, for the purchase of the Austin plant for five
million francs. Ten other companies, both French and German, were interested at
the time in securing the property. Within a month after the offer was made by
the Krupp firm, a subordinate in the office of the defendant Loeser reported
that Erhard had been delaying negotiations. As a result thereof the German
military authorities, after consulting with the Krupp firm, directed Erhard to
give the Krupp firm a 3-year lease if he could not make up his mind to sell the
property, and that failure on the part of Erhard to make the lease would result
in his dismissal as administrator.
On 1 August 1942 Stein wrote from
Paris (NIK-13002, Pros. Ex. 686):* |
| |
“Furthermore he declared
that Mr. Erhard had also submitted other purchase offers after we had submitted
our offer. It is therefore clearly and unmistakably proved that Mr. Erhard was
trying to deceive us.
“Thus, the road is open to start direct and
final negotiations concerning the rent. Later, after it has been leased, one
could work out quietly all the remaining details concerning the
purchase.” |
| Defendant Loeser’s subordinate recommended that the lease should
be signed purely as an opening wedge for the later acqui- […sition]
|
__________
* Reproduced above in
section VII D 2.
1349 |
. 
