4. During the period from approximately March 1941 until April 1945, the defendants Flick and Steinbrinck were members of the Praesidium (governing board) of the Reichsvereinigung Kohle (commonly referred to as the RVK), an official organization for the regulation of the entire German coal industry. The defendants Burkart and Weiss were also active in RVK matters and assisted and advised Flick and the Flick Concern therein.* The functions and authority of the RVK and its Praesidium in the coal industry corresponded generally with those of the RVE and its Praesidium in the iron and steel industry, as set forth above. As members of the Praesidium, Flick and Steinbrinck attended meetings of the Praesidium and otherwise participated in the formulation and execution of repressive and cruel policies in the administration of the slave-labor program designed to enslave, procure, and exploit such labor. Flick's influence and control over policies and actions of the RVK were further extended through officials of his companies, who also held positions in the RVK and its subsidiary organizations and committees.

5. Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendant Steinbrinck held the position of Beauftragter Kohle West (Plenipotentiary for Coal in the Occupied Western Territories) of France, Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg, and the position of Generalbeauftragter fuer die Stahlindustrie (Plenipotentiary General for the Steel Industry) in northern France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. By virtue of these positions, and his activity therein, he exercised wide authority over the procurement, use, treatment, allocation, and transportation of thousands of slave laborers and prisoners of war.

6. Between September 1939 and May 1945, tens of thousands of slave laborers and prisoners of war were sought and utilized by the defendants in the industrial enterprises and establishments owned, controlled, or influenced by them. In the course of this use of forced labor in the enterprises referred to, the workers were exploited under inhumane conditions with respect to their personal liberty, shelter, food, pay, hours of work, and health. Repressive measures were used to force these workers to enter, or remain in, involuntary servitude. Armed guards, watch dogs, and barbed wire enclosures were commonly utilized to keep workers from escaping, and the few who did escape were reported to, and dealt with by, the Gestapo. Penalties, including cruel beatings, were often inflicted by persons under the supervision and control of the defendants. Food, sanitary measures, and

• Upon motion of the prosecution, the Tribunal directed that this should not be considered a charge of criminal liability on the part of the defendants Burkart and Weiss. (Tribunal Order of 9 July 1947)

medical assistance were customarily inadequate, and as a result many of the workers suffered illness and died. Prisoners of war were used in war operations and work having a direct relation with war operations, including the manufacture and transportation of armaments and munitions.

The defendants Flick, Burkart, Kaletsch, and Weiss are charged with responsibility for the acts and conduct set forth in this paragraph so far as they relate to establishments of the Flick Concern, including those operated directly or indirectly by the companies set forth in appendix A hereof; the defendant Terberger is charged with responsibility for the acts and conduct set forth in this paragraph so far as they relate to the Eisenwerk Gesellschaft Maximilianshuette A.G. (G.m.b.H. after 1944), (abbreviated Maxhuette), and establishments under its control; Weiss is also charged with responsibility for the acts and conduct set forth in this paragraph so far as they relate to the Siemag Company.*

7. The acts and conduct of the defendants set forth in this count were committed unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly and constitute violations of international conventions, particularly of Articles 3-7, 14, 18, 23, 43, 46, and 52 of the Hague Regulations, 1907; and of Articles 2-4, 6, 9-15, 23, 25, 27-34, 46-48, 50, 51, 54, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 65-68, and 76 of the Prisoner-of-War Convention (Geneva, 1929), of the laws and customs of war, of the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, of the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10.

*That part of this paragraph which charges the defendants with individual responsibility appears here as amended during the course of the trial by two separate Tribunal orders. The orders, made upon motions of the prosecution, are dated 9 July and 10 September 1947, respectively. Before amendment the text of the sentences in question read as follows:

"The defendants Flick, Burkart, Kaletsch, Weiss, and Terberger are charged with responsibility for the acts and conduct set forth in this paragraph so far as they relate to establishments of the Flick Concern, including those operated directly or indirectly by the companies set forth in appendix A hereof. Flick and Weiss are also charged with respon. sibility for the acts and conduct set forth in this paragraph so far as they relate to the Siemag Company. The defendant Steinbrinck is charged with responsibility for the acts and conduct set forth in this paragraph insofar as they relate to Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G., and affiliated companies."

COUNT TWO

8. Between September 1939 and May 1945, all the defendants except Terberger committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, were connected with plans and enterprises involving, and were members of organizations or groups connected with, plunder of public and private property, spoliation, and other offenses against property in countries and territories which came under the belligerent occupation of Germany in the course of its aggressive wars. These acts bore no relation to the needs of the army of occupation and were out of all proportion to the resources of the occupied territories.

9. In pursuance of deliberate plans and policies, the territories occupied by Germany as a result of its aggressive acts and its aggressive wars were exploited for the German war effort in a most ruthless way beyond the needs of the army of occupation and without consideration of the local economy. These plans and policies were intended not only to strengthen Germany in waging its aggressive wars, but also to secure the permanent economic domination by Germany of the continent of Europe. Public and private property was systematically plundered and pillaged. Agricultural products, raw materials needed by Germans, factories, machine tools, transportation equipment, other finished products, and foreign securities and holdings of foreign exchange were requisitioned and sent to Germany. In addition, local industries were placed under German supervision, and the distribution of raw materials was rigidly controlled. This supervision of industries ranged from general control provided for by blanket enactments, to the permanent dispossession of rightful owners of specific industrial enterprises. The industries thought to be of value to the German war effort were compelled to continue and most of the rest were closed down altogether.

In Lorraine (France), which, in violation of international law, was annexed by Germany immediately after the German occupation, French private properties were seized by the occupation authorities under the guise of establishing temporary administration by state commissioners. This artificial creation of German state property was only a temporary measure, and the properties were "reprivatized" by being turned over to German industrial

concerns.

Even before the attack on the U.S.S.R. plans had been made for the fullest and most ruthless exploitation of all Soviet economic resources. Concurrently with the invasion it was declared that the restraints of the Annex to Hague Convention IV of 18 October 1907 would not be observed by Germany. The entire Soviet industrial property was declared to be "property marshaled for national economy" (Wirtschafts-Sondervermoegen), belonging to the German State. Representatives of the German civil and military occupation authorities were declared trustees of this property to which Germany purportedly took title. In addition thereto, special governmental or semi-governmental companies, Monopolgesellschaften or Ostgesellschaften, were created by the Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan, Hermann Goering, as trustees for the control of certain sectors of Soviet economy. One of these Ostgesellschaften, the Berg- und Huettenwerksgesellschaft Ost m. b. H., usually referred to as the BHO, was trustee with respect to the iron, steel, and mining industry of the occupied part of the U.S.S.R. and the main spoliation agency in its field of operations.

10. All the defendants except Terberger participated extensively in the formulation and execution of the foregoing plans and policies of spoliation by seeking and securing possession, in derogation of the rights of the owners, of valuable properties in the territories occupied by Germany, for themselves, for the Flick Concern, and for other enterprises owned, controlled, or influenced by them; by exploiting all these properties in occupied territories, individually or through enterprises owned, controlled, or influenced by them, for German war purposes to an extent unrelated to the needs of the army of occupation and out of all proportion to the resources of the occupied territories; by abuse, destruction, and removal of such property; by taking possession of machinery, equipment, raw materials, and other property known by them to have been taken, by themselves or by others, from occupied territories; and by their activities in various official positions. The following instances are cited as examples.

a. In France.-Effective 1 March 1941 the Friedrich Flick Kommanditgesellschaft (parent holding company in the Flick Concern) secured a "trusteeship" of the plants Rombach and Machern in occupied Lorraine (France), which were the property of a French company known as Société Lorraine des Aciéries de Rombas. The "trusteeship" was accepted as part of a governmental plan and program, sponsored by defendants and other German industrialists for ultimate transfer to them of legal title to these and other similar properties in France. The Flick Concern was to gain legal title to the plants Rombach and Machern pur

suant to this general plan. These properties were operated by the Flick Concern through a company known as Rombacher Huettenwerke, G. m. b. H., from on or about 1 March 1941 until on or about 1 September 1944 in accordance with and in execution of said plan and program. The defendants Flick, Burkart, Kaletsch, and Weiss are charged with responsibility for the foregoing.

b. In the Occupied East.-Pursuant to the plans and programs of the Berg- und Huettenwerke Ost, G.m.b.H. (BHO), referred to above, the Flick Concern organized, together with the Reichswerke Hermann Goering, a company called Dnjepr Stahl [Dnepr Steel] G.m.b.H. for the purpose of exploiting mining and smelting properties in the U.S.S.R. located near the Dnepr River. The Flick Concern operated these properties from about January 1943 until the Germans evacuated this region. The defendants Flick, Burkart, Kaletsch, and Weiss are charged with responsibility therefor.

Pursuant to the plans and programs of the BHO, the Siegener Maschinenbau A.G. (Siemag) gained possession of the works Woroshilov [Voroshilov] at Dnjepropetrowsk [Dnepropetrovsk] in the U.S.S.R. and operated them from about January 1943 until the evacuation of the area in the fall of 1943. Siemag was owned principally by Weiss, who is charged with responsibility therefor.*

In accordance with the general plans and programs of the German occupation authorities, the Flick Concern gained possession of the Vairogs railroad car plants in occupied Riga (Rigaer Waggonfabrik "Vairogs") on or about July 1942. The properties were operated by the Flick Concern until the German retreat from Riga about September 1944. Flick, Burkart, Kaletsch, and Weiss are charged with responsibility therefor.

11. Between 1940 and 1945 the defendants Flick and Steinbrinck participated in plans and programs for spoliation of occupied territories through their positions and membership in, and influence on, various organizations of the iron, steel, and coal industries, including Reichsvereinigung Eisen, Reichsvereinigung Kohle, Wirtschaftsgruppe Eisenschaffende Industrie, and subsidiary organizations of each, and through membership in, and influence on, the Kleine Kreis ("Small Circle") of leaders of the Nord-West Gruppe Eisenschaffende Industrie.

Between 1940 and 1945 Steinbrinck participated in the plans and programs for spoliation of western occupied territories by virtue of his positions as Plenipotentiary General for the Steel Industry in northern France, Luxembourg, and Belgium, and Plenipotentiary for Coal in France, Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

*This charge involving Siemag was amended by a Tribunal Order of 10 September 1947 upon motion of the prosecution. Prior to this order it read as follows: "Siemag was owned principally by Weiss and was controlled and influenced by Flick and Weiss, both of whom are charged with responsibility therefor."

955487-52