Court 6 case 6 Commission For the sake of completeness, I have to add that Bayer and RhonePoulenc had a very lively correspondence concerning all questions in which Rhone-Poulenc was interested.
The gentlemen of Rhone-Poulenc frequently visited our laboratories in Elberfeld and Hoechst, and were able to gain knowledge of all of these products which were concerned by the contract. They gained very important experiences in this manner, which they used to simplify and make their products less expensive, and to increase their promotion in a useful way. The value of money of this service that Bayer rendered cannot be overestimated.
QMr. Schmitz, perhaps you have another addition to make to your affidavit of 11 March 1948?
AYes, one. This is document Mann 390 exhibit 279, contained in Volume V, on page 125 concerning the calculation which is mentioned in there the services of both partners to each other, and on the basis of this, I have to add the following.
In connection with the payment of license fees Bayer already had waived its right to the payment of these license fees from the socalled contracts for the time prior to the beginning of the war, that is the time from the outbreak of the war, That is the first of September 1939 until the beginning of Contract I, namely, 1 Janaury 1941.
COURT VI CASE VI COMMISSION A conservative estimate based upon licenses given previous to that and after that, this would amount to approximately three million French francs.
A possible reduction in turnover caused by the war, of course, is considered in this sum. This sun of three million French francs therefore would have to be added to the profit which was calculated in this table of mine since Rhone Poulenc did not have to pay this sum. Now, of course, there is another advantage that Rhone Poulenc had from that. Bayerwithdrew from their business in France after the signing of contract 1 and during the time following. First of all, in the field of aspirin in February of 1941 and later on in the special fields and fine chemical field from the year 1942. That is why the turnover in these products of course fell to the advantage of Rhone Poulenc, especially in those preparations in which Rhone Poulenc had brought parallel products as imitations on the market. I further would like to state that it can be assumed with certainty that Bayer would have executed the plans that they had before the war, namely to institute their own production in France and to leave the sales management under cover of a French firm. By that the turnover of the sales of Bayer in France would have been considerably increased. Since this project was not carried out Rhone Poulenc had, of course, another big advantage.
Q.Otherwise you would have no corrections?
A.No, that's all.
DR. TUERK:Thank you. I yield the witness for cross-examination.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. NEWMAN:
COURT VI CASE VI COMMISSION
Q.Mr. Witness, we shall first turn to your affidavit of March 13, 1948. This is Mann exhibit 185, his document 335, Mann book 4, page 21. I call your attention -
A.I didn't understand the number.
Q.This is exhibit 185, document number 335. Is this affidavit now before you?
A.Yes.
Q.I call your attention to page 1, number 2, second paragraph, where you say that in 1941 Mr. Bo spontaneously asked you for patent suggestions for France in order to enable him to take steps of his own in Paris. As to this spontaneous request by Monsieur Bo I ask you, hadn't you first told him that a copy of Bayer's suggestions concerning a French patent law was already in the hands of the German Armistice Delegation?
A.No, I can't remember that. I can't remember having talked about that previous to the conference with Herr Bo.
Q.Now you will be shown Mann's exhibit 188. This is Minn's document number 522, Mann book number 4, page 25. This is a letter to Bayer's director Brueggemann of May 12, 1941 signed Schmitz. Please tell us first, are you the author of this letter and does Schmitz stand for Werner Schmitz?
A.Yes, that is my letter to our director, Dr. Brueggemann in Leverkusen, thank you.
Q.Now I call your attention to the second part of this letter where you say that Monsieur Bo, and I quote, "requested the undersigned to send on the report...... to the German delegation." That's the Armistice COURT VI CASE VI COMMISSION Commission.
Now, this, as you will recall, was Bayer's request to introduce a patent law in France, Does this refresh your recollection as to whether or not you mentioned the Armistice Delegation in this connection?
A.No, not even now. I only remember that Herr Bo wanted to have documents from me concerning the establishment of the introduction of patent law in France. Now, whether we talked in connection with this about our request to the Reich Ministry of Justice or not, I can't remember that.
Q.You are just mentioning the German Ministry of Justice. My question referred to the copy which was sent to the German Armistice Delegation.
A.I am not informed about that because these matters of patent law and legal points were not within my sphere of work. I only knew them by reading about them.
Q.You will be shown NI-7637 which we will introduce in evidence as exhibit 2345. This is a letter to Hoerlein, Brueggemann and Mann of February 10, 1941. Do you see the handwritten remark in the right top corner, "Prokurist, W. Schmitz"?
A.Yes, that's me.
Q.Will you please read the short letter and tell me whether this refreshes your recollection as to whether your patent suggestion was also sent to the German Armistice Delegation?
A.Yes, that's right. Now I remember having seen this letter.
Q.Now, Mr. Schmitz, I come back to the document I showed you before, your letter to Brueggemann of May 12, 1941 which was Mann exhibit 188, where you say this, and I quote: "The report in question" -- you are COURT VI CASE VI COMMISSION again speaking of Bayer's report to the Nazi authorities concerning a one transmitted to the Reich Ministry of Justice on October 10, 1940, which, however, is not suitable for presentation in total to Monsieur Bo since in this report infringements of Rhone Poulenc, where imitation was concerned, are rather too sharply stressed."
Can you tell us what was Farben's purpose in stressing Rhone Poulenc's infringments too sharply in its report to the Nazi authorities.
A.The firm of Rhone Poulenc was the firm which had damaged us most of all during the last decades, by virtue of their imitations.
Q.Just try to answer my question why it was stressed too sharply. That's all I am asking.
A.Too strongly in this case refers of course to the sensitivity of the firm of Rhone Poulenc. May I continue with my explanation from before?
Court No. VI, Case No. VI - Commission
QYou answered the question. Coming back to Mr. Bo's spontaneous request for a patent law in France, was not Rhone-Poulenc after this agreement was entered into in a worse position than any other pharmaceutical firm in France in that Rhone-Poulenc had to pay license fees for the manufacture or the sale of Bayer products which any other possible manufacturer in France might have taken up without paying such royalties?
ANo, I can't say that. In as far as the products that RhonePoulenc imitated are concerned they were the only firm in France doing that. There were no other firms, and because of the complicated nature of the newer products, it could not be assumed that any other French firm would ever have taken up these imitations besides Rhone-Poulenc.
QYou will be shown Faure-Beaulieu's testimony, which is F-A-U-R-E---B-E-A-L-I-E-U--so you will be shown Faure-Beaulieu's letter to Mann of December 29, 1940, our NI-7666, which may go in as Prosecution Exhibit 2346. Will you please first tell us from the photostat before you is the handwritten initial "SEH" your handwriting?
AYes, it is. That is my sign.
QWill you please look at this note enclosed with FaureBeaulieu's letter, Article 6, paragraph 2, which reads, "The obligation which Rhone-Poulenc and Specia accept vis a vis 'Bayer' already in itself puts this firm (id est Rhone Poulenc) into an unfavorable situation with regard to every other possible manufacture who, either through processes other than those which are protected, or through the expiration of patents, or the lack of patents, might take up the manufacture of the sale of products invented by 'Bayer'." Now, do you recall that you read this note at the time?
AOh yes, I can. I remember.
QJust a minute, I would like to ask my question first. Does this refresh your recollection as to whether Rhone-Poulenc, after this license agreement was entered into, was eager to have introduced some protection of pharmaceutical processes in order not to be at such Court No. VI, Case No. VI - Commission manifest disadvantages towards all other French manufacturers--does this refresh your recollection as to whether Rhone-Poulenc after this license agreement was entered into was eager to have introduced some protection of pharmaceutical processes in France in order not to be at such manifest disadvantage towards all other French manufacturers?
AYes. The firm of Rhone-Poulenc before the signing, as well as afterwards, insisted themselves upon the introduction of patent laws.
QJust a minute. My question was whether you know either from your recollection or on the strength of this document why RhonePoulenc at that time wanted to have a patent law to be introduced in France?
ARhone-Poulenc always emphasized towards us that they, as the largest and most serious producer of pharmaceutical products in France, always would try to set patent laws, and that they always did that.
QWe shall now come to the affidavit of March 11, 1948, Mann Exhibit 201, Document Number 337, Mann Book Number IV, page 53. Is this affidavit before you?
AYes.
QWill you please turn to Number 2, where you say, I quote, "We succeeded in avoiding any direct interference of the German authorities." Will you please tell us whether there was any German Government agency which tried to interfere or which had indicated that it would interfere with your negotiations with Rhone-Poulenc?
AAlready when they made the preliminary steps the Reich authorities in Berlin, of course, interfered, when they heard about the first trip that Mr. Mann made to Paris. They asked Herr Mann about his plans and intentions and commissioned him that he should report to them when he returned from Paris.
QIs that what you would call "interference"?
AWell, not an interference perhaps, but certainly a taking Court No. VI, Case No. VI - Commission.
of interest.
QMr. Schmitz, do you know anything about German officials, and, if so, please state who, approaching Farben and Bayer in particular expressing the wish that Bayer should acquire a participation in RhonePoulenc.
AThose were the gentlemen of the Reich Ministry of Economics to whom we reported about our plans and who then simply agreed to our intentions.
QNow, Mr. Schmitz, do you recall that I interrogated you in Nurnberg on January 14, 1948?
AYes.
QAnd do you recall whether at the time you made your statements under oath?
AYes.
QDid you sign and correct your statements before signing?
AYes.
QNow, I will read to you two questions and two answers from this interrogation. Please tell us whether you recall this statement. If you wish to see the entire interrogation as signed by you, please so indicate.
DR. TUERK:Objection, Mr. Commissioner. It is customary at this trial that if something is being read into the record from a document, this document is being offered at least for identification and that at least defense gets a copy of this document.
MR. NEWMAN:Though I don't agree in principle, I don't have any objections to submitting a copy to both the court and defense counsel.
DR. TUERK:I withdraw my objection. BY MR. NEWMAN:
QNow, I will quote from my interrogation. And for the record, just for identification, this interrogation will become Prosecution Exhibit 2347, NI-13561.
Court No. VI, Case No. VI - Commission "Q. Now, so that we don't get lost in too many details, I should like to put some definite questions to you."
Now, the question is word by word the name as the one I just put, but I shall put it again:
"Q Do you know anything about German officials - and if so, state who, approaching Farben and Bayer in particular after the collapse of France, and demanding or expressing the wish that Bayer should acquire a participation in French industrial firms, namely, in Rhone-Poulenc?
ANo, to us in particular.
QExcuse me, is your "no" a reply to the question whether you know this, or do you mean that no such demand was ever made to you?
ANo, not to my knowledge. We only knew that on the German side there was an earnest desire--an urgent one is too much to say-for a close relationship between the German and French manufacturers of the same category of goods". Now, do you recall this interrogation?
AYes, entirely.
QNow, coming back to your affidavit, you also say under the same number that Bayer was very anxious that negotiations should be conducted purely on the basis of a private transaction. In this connection, I would just like to ask you this. Are you the author of the minutes of the meeting between Bayer and Rhone-Poulenc of November 29 to December 2, 1940--just a minute--which is Prosecution Exhibit 1269, NI-7629, Document Book 59, English page 55, and German page 87--if the minutes are before you, please tell us whether you are the author?
AYes, as an expert for France, I took part in the meeting, and I was the author of this transcript.
COMMISSION - COURT VI
Q.Thank you. I am now turning to your affidavit again dated March 11, 1948, Mann Exhibit 211, Document Book 373, Mann Book IV, page 80. In this affidavit you are speaking of the pre-war agreements between Rhone-Poulenc and Bayer. My question is: Had Rhone-Poulenc lived up to its pre-war agreements with Bayer?
A.As far as they were connected with the contracts, yes.
Q.In this affidavit you also state that at the meetint in Paris of November 29 and 30, 1940, Rhone-Poulenc's Monsieur Grillet spontaneously offered to pay royalties for certain products. Now, do you mean by "spontaneous" that this offer was made immediately following Mr. Mann's threat, and I quote from your contemporaneous report, Prosecution Exhibit 1269, NI-7629, Document Book 59, English page 55, German page 87, I quote: "That he"" -- that is Mr. Mann -- "must return his assignment to the German Government as a failure and he hinted that the French side might later on regret its neglect of using the opportunity afforded by our present willingness to come to terms". Is that what you mean by "Grillet's spontaneous suggestion"?
A.Mr. Newman, you said before "threat", but I can't remember that there was any threat made during the meeting of the 29th and 30th of November. I myself, as you know, was one of the participants. Discussion at times was lively, but a threat never was voiced. Now, if in this transcript, if I mention the word "order", then will you please consider the following: This transcript was drawn up a week after the meeting in Paris had taken place and was based on hand-written notes and memos which I made in the course of the meeting on loose sheets of paper.
I don't remember that in the meeting itself the word "order" was mentioned at all, but on the other hand I can remember very clearly that Mann expressed his deep concern about the fact that RhonePoulenc perhaps might get more disadvantageous conditions by way of an armistice treaty than if they would conclude negotiations with us, that is tos ay by anticipating the treaty by a contract of a private economic nature.
Q.And Monsieur Grillet made his suggestion after Mr. Mann had expressed what you just called his "deep concern"?
A.Yes, that is just what it was.
Q.May I suggest, Judge Crawford, that this is the proper time for adjournment. The defense counsel just asked me to inquire when this interrogation can be continued.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes. We will find out when it can be continued. We will recess for how long, Mr. Amchan?
MR. AMCHAN:Well, I suggest, your Honor, that you recess until nine-thirty and we will arrange tomorrow morning for a continuation of these hearings dependent upon the calendar that you have in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT:The Commission will be in recess until nine-thirty tomorrow.
(The Commission of Tribunal VI adjourned until 7 May 1948, at 0930 hours.)
Court 6, Case 6 Commission II Official Transcript of Military Tribunal VI, Case II, Commission, in the matter of the United States of America against Carl Krauch, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on May 6, 1948, 1330 hours, Commissioner Mulroy presiding.
THE MARSHAL:Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Commissioner of Military Tribunal VI.
The Commission is now in session God save the United States of America and this Honorable Commission.
There will be order in the Court.
MRS. KUFMANN:If your Honor pleases, some of the Defense counsel are not here. Mr. Minskoff, who is probably going to cross-examine certain of the defendants and affiants is not here yet either. Perhaps we will just simply have to wait.
THE COMMISSIONER:I Was going to ask that question. The first thing is as to whether or not Defense counsel had received proper notice of this meeting, and whether or not all defendants interested were present. I will defer that and perhaps we had better recess perhaps for 10 minutes. Do you think that will be enough?
This hearing is in recess for 10 minutes.
(Hearing in recess until 1355 hours.) THE MARSHAL: The Commission is again in session.
DR. NATH:Dr. Nath, counsel for the defendant, Dr. Ilgner.
THE COMMISSIONER:Dr. Nath, are you sufficiently well acquainted with the situation as to the defendants to say that all of the defendants who are interested in this hearing, together with their attorneys, are Court 6, Case 6 Commission 6 now present?
DR. NATH:Mr. Commissioner, I announced during the Court session that there was a Coamissioner's hearing today, and my client and Mr. Gattineau are here. I believe the rest of the defendants are not interested to be here.
THE COMMISSIONER:Very well. I will ask the Marshal to report the defendants who are now present.
THE MARSHAL:If it please Your Honor, the defendants Ilgner and Gattineau are present in the Courtroom.
THE COMMISSIONERR:Thank you, Mr. Marshal: Are there any other matters for the record which either Defense or Prosecution wish to place upon the record before the examination of the witness begins?
You may proceed, Dr. Nath.
Court 6, Case 6 Commission II
DR.NATH: (Defense Counsel for defendant Ilgner): With the Commissioner's permission, may I call Dr. Hackemann to take the witness stand for cross examination by the prosecution?
THE COMMISSIONER:Yes, please proceed.
Dr. Nath, may I inquire, is this witness German?
DR. NATH:Yes, Mr. Commissioner.
ERNSTHACKEMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE COMMISSIONER:Mr. Witness, you will raise your right hand, say "I" and state your name.
THE WITNESS:I, Ernst Hackemann.
THE COMMISSIONER:Repeat this oath after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and the Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated, Mr. witness.
Before commencing your testimony, are you familiar with the lighting system?
THE WITNESS:No.
THE COMMISSIONER:Then I'll explain it to you. When you see the red light you must pause until you are directed to proceed. When the yellow light is flashed, that indicates that you are proceeding too rapidly and you will have to reduce your speed. Please speak rather slowly and as distinctly as possbile and answer the question asked you as briefly as is consistent with the clear statement of the facts.
You may proceed, Dr. Nath.
Court 6, Case 6 Commission II DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. NATH:
Q.Dr. Hackemann, would you please state your full name and your present address for the record?
A.Ernst Hackemann. Tuebingen.
Q.Mr. Hackemann, you rendered an affidavit dated 1 March 1948. Tha t is Ilgner Document #158 and is Ilgner Exhibit #125. Do you have that affidavit of yours before you?
A.I have an exhibit before me, 124, and I have another one which bears no number. That's document 158.
Q.We are only concerned with the latter here, Mr. Hackemann.
A.Very well.
Q.I want to find out from you whether you have any supplementation or corrections to make in regard to that affidavit of yours?
A.No.
DR. NATH:Then the witness is open for cross examination.
THE COMMISSIONER:The prosecution may proceed with the cross examination.
This is Mrs. Kaufmann?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MRS. KAUFMANN:
Q.Now, in your affidavit, which is Ilgner's Exhibit 125, that's the document marked #158, you discuss the Prosecution's Exhibit 807. This was a note of a conference to extend the propaganda activities of the International Central Office Joy and Work to South America which you Court 6, Case 6 Commission II attended as a representative of Farben.
You state in your affidavit that you were not under the impression that relations had existed at the time of the conference between I. G. Farben and the office of the German Labor Front which sponsored the conference, but rather than an attempt was made to get I, G., which had so far declined to put its members at the disposal of the organization of Joy and Work, to cooperate with that organization. What were the facts that caused your impression that Farben had, until the time of the conference, declined to put its representatives at the disposal of the organization Joy and Work?
A.That was the overall impression that I gained from that meeting and when I was welcomed in that conference I was told that they were glad that finally somebody from the firm would give an opportunity to that office of explaining the aims and purposes of the Central Office Joy and Work to the firm. Apart from that I noticed from the questions that the Secretary General of that Central Office asked me -- this man was a certain Mr. Manthey -- I set down this impression of mine in my file note which the prosecution has submitted and on the basis of which I swore out my affidavit, for that file note undoubtedly comes from me. I'm the author because it bears my dictation initials. Apart from that I remember that conference and I was able to find out that it was held on that particular date.
Q.Mr. Witness, you stated in your affidavit that you had the impression that, until the date of the conference, Farben had declined to cooperate with that organization and my question to you was, what were the facts which gave you the impression that Farben had declined? Can you Court 6, Case 6 Commission II recall those facts?
A.Yes. It was strange that in a conference in which originally Dr. Ley personally wanted to participate as I was told later, such an insignificant representative of the firm as I was sent there.
Q.Was that the only reason that caused you to conclude that Farben had declined to cooperate in the activities of the Strength through Joy?
A.Well, this was not the office Strength through Joy, but it was Joy and Work. That's something different. This was a so-called leisure hour organization the purpose of which and the aim of which was to help the worker in working out programs for his leisure hours, and, when making my report to the firm, and particularly when I gave my oral lecture to Dr. Kersten, whom I have mentioned here, I had the distinct impression that I was sent there on purpose and that no other representative of the firm had been chosen for that task, because the entire reception that that meeting got was of such a nature one considered this organization Joy and Work as something ludicrous and after all, that's what it was.
Q.Did the organization Strength through Joy have anything to do with the organization of Joy and Work?
A.That's asking a little too much at the moment for I'm not so well informed about the organization of the NSDAP that I could now, under oath, make a statement that would perhaps later turn out to be incorrect. I can say only this much. This office Joy and Work was an agency which was subordinate to Dr. Ley personally and since Dr. Ley was the chief of the organization Strength through Joy, I assume that there was a close connection between these two organizations and that the office Joy and Court 6, Case 6 Commission II Work as perhaps a subordinate group of the DAF, the German Labor Front.
Q.Now, who gave you the order to attend the conference? Do you recall?
A.I can it remember that now. I assume it was Dr. Kersten who was my immediate chief, to whom I reported afterwards personally; I remember that fact very well because of the somewhat ludicrous remark that Dr. Kersten made about the organization and in particular about an illus trated magazine in four or five languages which was published by this organization in a very fancy edition, by German standards, at least.
Q.Did Farben distribute that magazine?
A.Farben was to take over a few sponsorship copies. It was to pay for a certain number of copies of this magazine and to distribute them through its net of representatives in South America. As far as I know, these copies were never distributed because Dr. Kersten was opposed to the entire idea and particularly to calling the Farben liaison men into this distributing organization.
Court VI, Case VI COMMISSION II
QDid Kersten tell you that Farben was opposed to having its employees participate in Strength through Joy trips or in the projects proposed in that conference?
APlease repeat the question, for the first thing that was concerned here wa the distribution of magazines. The Strength through Joy trips was only touched upon incidentally during that meeting.
QThe meeting did discuss Strength through Joy trips, is that correct, Mr. Hackemann? You can give a yes or no answer to that question.
AYes. Daring that conference the possibility of a Strength through Joy trip to South America was mentioned as an aim that should be striven for, by this leisure time organization.
QNow, my question to you is, did Karsten tell you that Farben was opposed to its employees participating in the Strength through Joy trips? Now, Mr. Witness, I notice that you are thumbing through papers, etc. I should think this would be a matter for your recollection. Did Mr. Dersten tell you that Farben was opposed to those trips or did he not?
THE COMMISSIONER:Now, Mr. Witness, questions of that kind can be answered in one of three days. You may say either "Yes" or "No" or "I don't know" and that will save a good deal of time.
THE WITNESS:Well, the fact whether or not Farben employees Court VI, Case VI COMMISSION II The Witness:
Well, the fact whether or not Farben employees were to participate in Strength through Joy trips was not on the agenda of that conference.
DR. NATH:May I make a correction for the record. There is a name mentioned, Dr. Kersten, but his name should be Kersten not Kirstein.
THE COMMISSIONER:The record will show the correction.
BY MRS. KAUFMANN:
QDid the conference discuss trips through South America on the subject of either Joy and Work or Strength through Joy?
AThe Secretary General of that Central Office said, among other things, that for a later period Strength through Joy trips to South America were planned.
QNow, I'd like to know more specifically than you have put into the record what were the objections voiced by Kersten to the proposals of the conference?
AThat it wasn't, as a matter of principle, the firm's intention, as a commercial firm, to interfere with the work of the Central Office Joy and Work.
QDid you know that a Farben representative and official had participated in a Strength through Joy program in South America? Did you know that?
ANo.
QIn that connection I show you Prosecution's Document Court VI, Case VI COMMISSION II NI 14320 which will be introduced as Prosecution's which discusses an interview of Frank-Fahle, dated April 25, 1937.