 |
pay ALSTHOM 108,700 RM for the machines, a price fixed by a German
official evaluation which included deductions for repair costs, transportation
and installation charges from data furnished by the Krupp firm. When its
efforts to purchase the machines failed, the Krupp firm enlisted the aid of the
Navy High Command which advised that it could not order ALSTHOM to accept the
price offered by the Krupp firm and that the matter could be settled only by
negotiation. However the military intendant for France advised ALSTHOM that
compensation was a matter for the German Army, that the Krupp firm should not
be expected to handle the matter, and that the only basis for settlement was
the price already fixed. From that time forward the firm’s efforts to
obtain title were directed through the military authorities so that the Krupp
firm would not appear as a party to the negotiations.
The director of
ALSTHOM not only objected to the seizure and removal of the machines but
repeatedly demanded that the machines be returned. He testified that a decree
or order of the French collaborationist government was to the effect that if
the owner of a confiscated machine refused to negotiate with the German
authorities, then, after a certain period, the owner lost all claim to
indemnification. In consequence of this order the director of ALSTHOM continued
to bargain with the Krupp firm and the German authorities as the correspondence
reveals; but he pursued delaying tactics which in the end, and only because of
the unsuccessful termination of the war for Germany, proved successful.
The Krupp firm was specifically advised of at least some of the illegal
aspects of the seizure of these machines. On 21 July 1943 a file memorandum by
a Krupp employee stated (NIK-13450, Pros. Ex. 718):* |
| |
“1. According to information
given by attorney-at-law Schuermann, the whole confiscation was carried out at
the time in contravention to the rules of the Hague Convention for Land
Warfare. This in itself, allows only seizure for the purpose of use, but not
seizure with the intention of actual transfer of property.
“2. I
have asked Mr. Sieber, once more to make representations at the Intendantur,
asking them to interpose their authority and to settle the matter, as the
sending of files back and forth would not lead to anything. Mr. Sieber is of
the same opinion and wanted once more to approach the Intendantur of the
military commander in this matter. |
__________
* Reproduced above in
section VII F 1.
1359 |
. 
