For The Record  

FTR #411 The Bayer Facts: I.G. Farben and the Politics of Murder

Lis­ten:
MP3 Side 1 | Side 2
RealAu­dio

Intro­duc­tion: Pre­sent­ing some of the his­tory and func­tional aspects of the I.G. Far­ben chem­i­cal car­tel, the Bayer phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal firm, in par­tic­u­lar. Grow­ing out of the merger of Germany’s top chem­i­cal and phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal firms at the end of World War I, the I.G. Far­ben com­pany and its post World War II suc­ces­sor com­pa­nies are at the very epi­cen­ter of the his­tory of twen­ti­eth cen­tury indus­try. Unfor­tu­nately, they have been respon­si­ble for a great deal of destruc­tion, both as the back­bone of Hitler’s war pro­duc­tion and as the mar­keters of drugs that have done great dam­age to humanity.

Much of the first side of the pro­gram high­lights Bayer’s frankly sus­pi­cious deci­sion to retain con­trol of its phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal divi­sion five days before the first anthrax attacks. After drop­ping 30% in value, the firm’s stock increased 33% after the anthrax attacks—Bayer is the man­u­fac­turer of Cipro, the treat­ment of choice for anthrax infec­tion. An equally sus­pi­cious gam­bit was Bayer’s deci­sion to con­tinue to sell a drug used to treat hemo­philia, even after it was evi­dent that the drug (derived from blood plasma) was infected with HIV.

A major por­tion of the broad­cast is devoted to analy­sis of the I.G.‘s role in the post­war Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion. Inex­tri­ca­bly linked with both the Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal pro­gram and the post­war oper­a­tions of the Under­ground Reich, I.G. Far­ben and its Big Three suc­ces­sor com­pa­nies (Hoechst, BASF and Bayer) wield piv­otal influ­ence in the con­tem­po­rary com­mer­cial landscape.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: The deci­sion by Bayer to retain a com­pany insider as head of the firm shortly before the anthrax attacks in the US; the selec­tion of two “I.G. insid­ers” as heads of the Vivendi and Ber­tels­mann media firms (prin­ci­pal focal points of the series on Ger­man cor­po­rate con­trol of the Amer­i­can media); the con­tin­ued dom­i­nance of I.G. Far­ben in the post World War II French indus­trial econ­omy; the Leuna refin­ery in the for­mer East Ger­many and its cen­tral role in the CDU fund­ing scan­dal (see FTRs 194, 276, 278); a review of the “Bat­tle of Leuna” (one of the deci­sive aer­ial engage­ments of World War II).

1. Begin­ning dis­cus­sion of the I.G. Far­ben firm, the broad­cast sets forth an inter­est­ing piece of the his­tory of the Bayer company—one of the most impor­tant ele­ments of the I.G. Far­ben combine.

“Bayer’s phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal ven­ture was even larger [than that of Hoechst]. Out of its lab­o­ra­to­ries emerged aspirin, the world’s most famous home rem­edy for pain and fever. Bayer was also respon­si­ble for the intro­duc­tion of heroin, which it sold as a cure for mor­phine addic­tion and as a cough sup­pres­sant, espe­cially effec­tive in chil­dren. Later the Bayer lab­o­ra­to­ries devel­oped methadone, in prepa­ra­tion for World War II, as a syn­thetic sub­sti­tute for mor­phine. It was orig­i­nally named Dolophine, in honor of Adolf Hitler. Today, methadone is used prin­ci­pally in the treat­ment of heroin addiction.”

(The Crime and Pun­ish­ment of I.G. Far­ben; Joseph Borkin; Copy­right 1978 [HC] by The Free Press [a divi­sion of MacMil­lan]; ISBN 0–02-904630–0; pp. 6–7.)

2. An impor­tant (and largely over­looked) aspect of the 9/11 attacks con­cerns the curi­ous maneu­ver­ing of the Bayer com­pany. Five days before the anthrax let­ters were mailed (on Sep­tem­ber 18, 2001), Bayer made an inter­est­ing deci­sion not to sell its embat­tled phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals divi­sion. Of great sig­nif­i­cance in that con­text was its equally sur­pris­ing deci­sion to appoint a long-time com­pany insider as the head of the divi­sion, in defi­ance of what had been fore­cast by invest­ment ana­lysts. As will be seen later, the deci­sion to retain a long­time Bayer oper­a­tive as head of the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals branch is con­sis­tent with Bayer’s sta­tus as one of the core com­pa­nies of the Bor­mann organization.

“Defy­ing expec­ta­tions, Bayer A.G. said today that it would not sell its embat­tled phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals unit after all, and it named a long­time exec­u­tive, not a fresh face from out­side the com­pany, to suc­ceed its chief exec­u­tive, Man­fred Schnei­der. Though it made clear that it was not happy about the idea, Bayer seemed to be heed­ing increased pres­sure to get out of the drug busi­ness. Last month, it was forced to with­draw a cholesterol-lowering drug, Bay­col, which had been linked to 52 deaths and is the sub­ject of a class-action law­suit in the United States. Bay­col was cru­cial to the drug unit’s rev­enue and profit growth, ana­lysts said, and its with­drawal made plain that Bayer was no longer big enough in the drug busi­ness to thrive independently.”

(“Bayer Won’t Sell Drug Unit and Picks Insider as Chief” by Suzanne Kap­ner; The New York Times; 9/14/2001; p. C10.)

3. Bayer’s stock had dropped almost 30 per­cent as a result of the Bay­col scandal.

“Ana­lysts and investors had also hoped that a fresh face in the chief executive’s office after Mr. Schnei­der retires in April might make a break with cor­po­rate strat­egy. But Bayer chose Werner Wen­ning, 54, a 30-year vet­eran of the com­pany who is now its chief finan­cial offi­cer. Mr. Schnei­der said today that an out­right sale of the drug unit had been ruled out. ‘Despite the major set­back,’ he said, ‘these activ­i­ties remain a core busi­ness of the Bayer Group that can con­tribute sub­stan­tially to enhanc­ing the company’s value.’ Investors showed their dis­plea­sure at the deci­sion, made at a board meet­ing at com­pany head­quar­ters in Lev­erkusen, Ger­many, by bid­ding Bayer’s stock down about 3 per­cent in Frank­furt today. The stock has fallen almost 30 per­cent since Bay­col was recalled on Aug. 8. [Ital­ics are Mr. Emory’s]”

(Idem.)

4. One should not fail to note that Bayer’s stock appre­ci­ated sig­nif­i­cantly as a result of the [as yet unsolved] anthrax attacks. It regained all of the ground lost as a result of the Bay­col fiasco. Bayer was the maker of Cipro—the pre­ferred treat­ment for anthrax. The pos­si­bil­ity that the anthrax attacks were per­pe­trated by the Under­ground Reich is not one to be too read­ily dis­missed. (It is interesting—and pos­si­bly significant—that the manip­u­la­tion of equi­ties mar­kets took place with regard to both the 9/11 attacks and the assas­si­na­tion of Pres­i­dent Kennedy.)

” . . . Bayer, the Ger­man maker of Cipro—the antibi­otic of choice for anthrax infections—is tripling its out­put of the drug. And Bayer’s stock price has risen by more than 33% since the anthrax out­breaks began. [Ital­ics are Mr. Emory’s]”

(“Biotech­nol­ogy Stocks Are Gain­ing on Anthrax Scare” by Charles Piller; Los Ange­les Times; 10/18/2001; p. C1.)

5. Sup­ple­ment­ing infor­ma­tion pre­sented in pre­vi­ous broad­casts about AIDS as a bio­log­i­cal war­fare weapon, this pro­gram high­lights the dis­turb­ing fact that Bayer con­tin­ued to mar­ket a ther­a­peu­tic drug for hemo­phil­i­acs to cus­tomers in Third World coun­tries even after it was appar­ent that the prod­uct was con­t­a­m­i­nated with HIV.

“A divi­sion of the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pany Bayer sold mil­lions of dol­lars of blood-clotting med­i­cine for hemophiliacs—medicine that car­ried a high risk of trans­mit­ting AIDS—to Asia and Latin Amer­ica in the mid-1980’s while sell­ing a new, safer prod­uct in the West, accord­ing to doc­u­ments obtained by The New York Times. The Bayer unit, Cut­ter Bio­log­i­cal, intro­duced its safer med­i­cine in late Feb­ru­ary as evi­dence mounted that the ear­lier ver­sion was infect­ing hemo­phil­i­acs with H.I.V. Yet for over a year, the com­pany con­tin­ued to sell the old med­i­cine over­seas, prompt­ing a United States reg­u­la­tor to accuse Cut­ter of break­ing its promise to stop sell­ing the product.”

(“2 Paths of Bayer Drug in 80’s: Riskier Type Went Over­seas” by Walt Bog­danich and Eric Koli; The New York Times; 5/22/2003; p. 1.)

6.

“By con­tin­u­ing to sell the old ver­sion of the life-saving med­i­cine, the records show, Cut­ter offi­cials were try­ing to avoid being stuck with large stores of a prod­uct that was prov­ing increas­ingly unmar­ketable in the United States and Europe. Yet even after it began sell­ing the new prod­uct, the com­pany kept mak­ing the old med­i­cine for sev­eral months more. A telex from Cut­ter to a dis­trib­u­tor sug­gests one rea­son behind that deci­sion, too: the com­pany had sev­eral fixed-price con­tracts and believed that the old prod­uct would be cheaper to produce . . .”

(Idem.)

7.

” . . . ‘These are the most incrim­i­nat­ing inter­nal phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try doc­u­ments I have ever seen,’ said Dr. Sid­ney M. Wolfe, who as direc­tor of the Pub­lic Cit­i­zen Health Research Group has been inves­ti­gat­ing the industry’s prac­tices for three decades . . .”

(Idem.)

8.

” . . . The med­i­cine, called Fac­tor VIII Con­cen­trate, essen­tially pro­vides the miss­ing ingre­di­ent with­out which hemo­phil­i­acs’ blood can­not clot. By inject­ing them­selves with it, hemo­phil­i­acs can stop bleed­ing or pre­vent bleeds from start­ing; some use it as many as three times a week. It has helped hemo­phil­i­acs lead nor­mal lives. But in the early years of the AIDS epi­demic, it became a killer. The med­i­cine was made using pools of plasma from 10,000 or more donors, and since there was still no screen­ing test for the AIDS virus, it car­ried a high risk of pass­ing along the dis­ease; even a tiny num­ber of H.I.V.—positive donors could con­t­a­m­i­nate an entire pool.”

(Idem.)

9.

“In the United States, AIDS was passed on to thou­sands of hemo­phil­i­acs, many of whom died, in one of the worst drug-related med­ical dis­as­ters in history.”

(Idem.)

10. The vast inter­na­tional infra­struc­ture of the I.G. Far­ben firm and its var­i­ous sub­sidiary oper­a­tions was a prin­ci­pal ele­ment of the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion. I.G. Far­ben chief Her­mann Schmitz dis­cussed I.G.‘s involve­ment with the Bor­mann program.

“In tes­ti­mony later given to Nurem­berg inves­ti­ga­tors, Schmitz praised Bor­mann for the way he had directed the dis­tri­b­u­tion of Ger­man assets around the world. His own Far­ben orga­ni­za­tion had, of course, con­tributed to the suc­cess of the oper­a­tion. Every regional rep­re­sen­ta­tive work­ing for Her­mann Schmitz was an excep­tional busi­ness­man, or he would not have been with I.G. All had con­tributed sound advice in their areas of com­pe­tence, the regions of the world where they rep­re­sented Far­ben while keep­ing an eye on the sub­sidiaries of the par­ent con­cern and the 700 hid­den cor­po­ra­tions they con­trolled. They had pro­vided assis­tance and con­tin­u­ing guid­ance in estab­lish­ing the 750 new com­pa­nies cre­ated on order of Bor­mann, who wanted more than hid­den assets; Bor­mann wanted the money and patents and tech­ni­cians put to work to cre­ate even greater assets that would bol­ster Ger­many in the post­war years. In their meet­ing in the chan­cellery, both men checked over the fig­ures of sums dis­bursed, and they were accu­rate to the pfennig.”

(Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; Paul Man­ning; Lyle Stu­art 1981[HC]; Copy­right 1981 by Paul Man­ning; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; pp. 157–158.)

11. Bor­mann and Schmitz then dis­cussed I.G.‘s prospects for the post­war period. The firm’s cozy rela­tion­ship with pow­er­ful ele­ments within the power elites of the West­ern allies was fore­seen by Schmitz as bod­ing well for the company’s future.

“The Reich­sleiter asked Schmitz his views of the future. Schmitz replied, ‘The occu­pa­tion armies will be under­stand­ing in the West, but cer­tainly not in the East. I have instructed all Far­ben admin­is­tra­tors and tech­ni­cians to come to the West, where they can be of use in resum­ing our oper­a­tions once the dis­tur­bances of 1945 come to a halt.’ Schmitz added that, while gen­eral bomb dam­age to the I.G. plants was about 25 per­cent of capac­ity, some were untouched. He men­tioned speak­ing with Field Mar­shal Model, who was com­mand­ing the defenses of the Ruhr. ‘Model had planned to turn our Bayer-Leberkusen phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal fac­tory into an artillery base, but he agreed to make it an open, unde­fended fac­tory. Hope­fully, we will get it back untouched.’ ‘What about your board of direc­tors and the essen­tial exec­u­tives? If they are held by the occu­pa­tion author­i­ties, can I.G. con­tinue?’ Bor­mann asked. ‘We can con­tinue. We have an oper­a­tional plan for such a con­tin­gency, which every­one under­stands. How­ever, I don’t believe our board mem­bers will be detained too long. Nor will I. But we must go through a pro­ce­dure of inves­ti­ga­tion before release, so I have been told by our N.W. 7 peo­ple who have excel­lent con­tacts in Washington.’”

(Ibid.; p. 158.) Schmitz’s pre­dic­tions were rel­a­tively accu­rate. Nei­ther Schmitz nor any of the I.G. Far­ben exec­u­tives were severely pun­ished and the firm’s three suc­ces­sor firms car­ried on effec­tively in the post­war period

12. Among the prin­ci­pal cap­i­tal ele­ments of the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion was the enor­mous eco­nomic power of the Her­mann Schm­mitz Trust.

“[Her­mann] Schmitz’s wealth—largely I.G. Far­ben bearer bonds con­verted to the Big Three suc­ces­sor firms, shares in Stan­dard Oil of New Jer­sey (equal to those held by the Rock­e­fellers), as well as shares in the 750 cor­po­ra­tions he helped Bor­mann estab­lish dur­ing the last year of World War II—has increased in all seg­ments of the mod­ern indus­trial world. The Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion in South Amer­ica uti­lizes the vot­ing power of the Schmitz trust along with their own assets to guide the multi­na­tion­als they con­trol, as they keep steady the eco­nomic course of the Fatherland.”

(Ibid.; p. 280.)

13. Next, the broad­cast sets forth the oper­a­tions of the “Big Three” suc­ces­sor firms to the I.G.—Bayer, Hoechst and BASF. It is impor­tant to note that the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion retained the deci­sive reins of power in these con­sum­mately impor­tant companies.

“By 1956, the three major multi­na­tion­als (Hoechst, BASF, and Bayer) reshaped from the 159 com­pa­nies within Ger­many that had com­prised I.G. Far­ben were gen­er­at­ing record prof­its for the orig­i­nal 450 major Far­ben stock­hold­ers, who had orga­nized them­selves into the I.G. Far­ben Stock­hold­ers Pro­tec­tive com­mit­tee in Bonn. The Big Three went on expand­ing, tripling cap­i­tal­iza­tion in 1956 from invest­ment funds that poured in from the inter­lock­ing com­pa­nies estab­lished in safe haven coun­tries by Mar­tin Bor­mann and Her­mann Schmitz. There was a return, more vig­or­ous than ever, of the huge, mono­lithic indus­trial multi­na­tion­als that dom­i­nated the Ger­man econ­omy before and dur­ing World War II.”

(Ibid.; p. 282.)

14.

“Each of these three spin­offs from I.G. Far­ben today does more busi­ness indi­vid­u­ally than did Far­ben at its zenith, when its cor­po­rate struc­ture cov­ered 93 coun­tries. BASF and Bayer indi­vid­u­ally boast world­wide sales of nearly $10 bil­lion annu­ally, while Hoechst, now the world’s largest chem­i­cal com­pany, gen­er­ated $16.01 bil­lion in world­wide sales in 1980. Each does more busi­ness than E.I. du Pont de Nemours, with sales of $9.4 bil­lion. The United States is, of course, the major mar­ket, one into which these Ger­man cor­po­ra­tions con­tinue to pour invest­ment money for both new cap­i­tal con­struc­tion and cor­po­rate takeovers. BASF and Hoechst have each invested in excess of $1 bil­lion in such expan­sions, and chief Her­bert Grunewald of Bayer A.G. has said that they plan a $1 bil­lion expan­sion in the United States within five to ten years. In Europe, Bayer A.G. is par­ent of some 380 sub­sidiary oper­a­tions. In the United States, it con­trols Mobay Chem­i­cal whose annual sales in 1978 of $779.5 mil­lion make it the Bayer group’s most for­mi­da­ble for­eign sub­sidiary. Miles lab­o­ra­to­ries (maker of Alka-Seltzer), Chema­gro, Rhinechem, Cut­ter Lab­o­ra­to­ries, and Har­mon Col­ors are addi­tional Bayer A.G. inter­ests in this coun­try that Grunewald says he plans to dou­ble as part of his Amer­i­can expan­sion program.”

(Ibid.; pp. 282–283.)

15.

“Together, these three multi­na­tion­als assure per­ma­nent pros­per­ity for the orig­i­nal 450 Far­ben stock­hold­ers, their banks, and the shad­owy share­hold­ers of the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion in south Amer­ica who guard and vote the Her­mann Schmitz trust fund through inter­me­di­aries at the annual meet­ings of BASF, Bayer and Hoechst.”

(Ibid.; p. 283.)

16. Review­ing the func­tion­ing of the suc­ces­sor firms to I.G. Far­ben in the over­all scheme of the Bor­mann out­fit, the broad­cast encap­su­lates that organization’s power.

“The Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion con­tin­ues to wield enor­mous eco­nomic influ­ence. Wealth con­tin­ues to flow into the trea­suries of its cor­po­rate enti­ties in South Amer­ica, the United States, and Europe. Vastly diver­si­fied, it is said to be the largest land-owner in South Amer­ica and through stock­hold­ings con­trols Ger­man heavy indus­try and the trust estab­lished by the late Her­mann Schmitz, for­mer pres­i­dent of I.G. Far­ben, who held as much stock in Stan­dard Oil of New Jer­sey as did the Rockefellers.”

(Ibid.; p. 292.)

17. In the con­text of the arti­cle that fol­lows, the pro­gram presents the deci­sive influ­ence of I.G. Farben’s con­trol of patents and engi­neer­ing skill in the indus­try to per­pet­u­ate its con­trol of the French chem­i­cal indus­try in the post­war period. The effec­tive eco­nomic occu­pa­tion of France did not end in 1945. The post­war struc­ture of cor­po­rate Europe remained in the effec­tive con­trol of cor­po­rate Ger­many which, in turn, is in the effec­tive con­trol of the Bor­mann group.

“I.G. Far­ben was a for­mi­da­ble ally for Reich­sleiter Bor­mann in his plans for the post­war eco­nomic rebirth of Ger­many. In a tele­phone con­ver­sa­tion with Dr. [Georg] von Schnit­zler, Bor­mann asked what would the loss of fac­to­ries in France and the other occu­pied coun­tries mean to Ger­man indus­try in gen­eral and to I.G. in par­tic­u­lar. Dr. von Schnit­zler said he believed the tech­ni­cal depen­dence of these coun­tries on I.G. would be so great that despite Ger­man defeat I.G., in one way or another, could regain its posi­tion of con­trol of the Euro­pean chem­i­cal busi­ness. ‘They will need the con­stant tech­ni­cal help of I.G.‘s sci­en­tific lab­o­ra­to­ries as they do not own appro­pri­ate instal­la­tions within themselves.’”

(Ibid.; p. 28.)

18. Mr. Emory’s FTR series about Ger­man cor­po­rate con­trol of the Amer­i­can media dealt exten­sively with the Vivendi firm of France and Ber­tels­mann A.G. of Ger­many. In mid-2002, both Vivendi and Ber­tels­mann effected sig­nif­i­cant man­age­ment changes. It is alto­gether reveal­ing and highly sig­nif­i­cant that Jean-Rene Four­tou had been the head of Rhone-Poulenc, a French phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals man­u­fac­turer which then merged (under the direc­tion of Four­tou) with Hoechst—one of the “Big Three” suc­ces­sor firms of the I.G.

“Jean-Rene Four­tou is the man with the unen­vi­able task of res­cu­ing the world’s sec­ond largest media group from a group of angry bankers and share­hold­ers . . . Mr. Four­tou grad­u­ated in 1960 from the Ecole Poly­tech­nique, France’s top busi­ness school and the train­ing ground for Mr. Messier, and joined man­age­ment con­sul­tancy Bossard, where he was chief exec­u­tive and chair­man between 1972 and 1986. Rhone-Poulenc the [for­merly state-owned] drugs man­u­fac­turer, recruited Mr. Four­tou as chair­man and chief exec­u­tive in 1986. In 2000, the com­pany merged with Hoechst of Ger­many to form Aven­tis, where he was vice-chairman. [Ital­ics are Mr. Emory’s.] He is firmly entrenched as a mem­ber of the old guard of the French busi­ness community.”

(“Jean-Rene Four­tou”; The Guardian; 7/8/2002.)

19. Also indica­tive of the cen­tral posi­tion of the old I.G. com­plex and the Bor­mann group in cor­po­rate Ger­many was the suc­ces­sion of Gun­ther Thie­len to the head of Ber­tels­mann. Thie­len had a man­age­ment back­ground with BASF, another of the suc­ces­sor firms to I.G. Farben.

“1970 dif­fer­ent lead­ing posi­tions, group of BASF, Lud­wigshafen. 1976 Tech­ni­cal man­ager, win­ter resound­ing refin­ery, Kassel.”

(“Dr. Gun­ther Thie­len”; pro­fes­sional biography.)

20. The pro­gram con­cludes with review of “the Bat­tle of Leuna”, one of the key aer­ial engage­ments of World War II. In this bat­tle, the U.S. Eighth Air Force bombed the Ger­man syn­thetic fuel pro­duc­tion out of effec­tive oper­a­tion, thus starv­ing the Ger­man war machine of petroleum.

“May 12, 1944, was a fate­ful day for Ger­many and for I.G. On that day, the United States Eighth Air Force sent 935 bombers over Ger­many to attack its syn­thetic oil indus­try: 200 bombers con­cen­trated on I.G.‘s plant alone. This attack marked the begin­ning of what the U.S. strate­gic bomb­ing sur­vey called ‘the Bat­tle of Leuna,’ clas­si­fy­ing it as ‘one of the major bat­tles of the war.’”

(The Crime and Pun­ish­ment of I.G. Far­ben; p. 128.)

21.

“The next day, Albert Speer, Reich min­is­ter for arma­ments and war pro­duc­tion, toured the wreck­age of Leuna with Buete­fisch. What he saw con­vinced him that ‘the tech­no­log­i­cal war was decided. . . . It meant the end of Ger­man arma­ment pro­duc­tion.’ For Speer it was the turn­ing point in the war. He imme­di­ately flew to Hitler’s head­quar­ters at Ober­salzburg to report on the extent and mean­ing of the dis­as­ter: ‘The enemy has struck us at one of our weak­est points,’ he told the Fuehrer. ‘If they per­sist at this time, we will soon have no fuel pro­duc­tion worth men­tion­ing. Our one hope is that the other side has an air force gen­eral staff as scat­ter­brained as ours!’”

(Idem.)

22.

“Hitler then sum­moned four of the top fuel experts from I.G., includ­ing Krauch and Buete­fisch, for a dis­cus­sion about the con­se­quences of the May 12 air raid. Goer­ing and Speer accom­pa­nied them to the meet­ing. Before the group went in to see Hitler, Speer advised the four fuel experts to tell ‘the unvar­nished truth.’ How­ever, Goer­ing insisted that they not be too pes­simistic. ‘He was prob­a­bly afraid that Hitler would place the blame for the deba­cle chiefly on him,’ Speer wrote later. Krauch was deter­mined to fol­low Speer’s advice. He told Hitler that Germany’s posi­tion was hope­less if the enemy air raids on the syn­thetic oil plants con­tin­ued. To sup­port his grim fore­cast, he pre­sented Hitler with an impres­sive array of facts and figures. . .”

(Ibid.; pp. 128–129.)

23.

“The course of the Bat­tle of Leuna became the gauge for the state of Ger­man oil pro­duc­tion. By early July the resource­ful I.G. tech­ni­cians were able to restore Leuna to seventy-five per­cent oper­at­ing capac­ity. How­ever, the Eighth Air Force returned on July 7, again bomb­ing the plant to a halt. Two days later the plant started oper­at­ing again and by July 19 had reached fifty-three per­cent of capac­ity. And so the cycle of bomb­ings and recon­struc­tion con­tin­ued. But the total effect on Ger­man fuel pro­duc­tion was noth­ing less than cat­a­strophic. Krauch con­cluded that the only way fuel instal­la­tions could be rebuilt after each raid was to can­ni­bal­ize other instal­la­tions. Under this plan to pre­vent the total ces­sa­tion of oil pro­duc­tion, Germany’s pro­duc­tive capac­ity dimin­ished with each recu­per­a­tion. By Sep­tem­ber, oil pro­duc­tion had dropped to fif­teen per­cent, a con­di­tion from which Ger­many was never to recover.”

(Ibid.; p. 130.)

24. In the con­text of both the Standard/I.G. Agree­ment of 1929 and the other busi­ness arrange­ments that I.G. had with major west­ern cor­po­ra­tions, a dis­cus­sion of a “gentleman’s agree­ment” with key busi­ness­men on the “other side” not to bomb I.G’s syn­thetic fuel plants is more than a lit­tle inter­est­ing. It is also sig­nif­i­cant to note that it is the old I.G. firm Degussa that was at the core of Hitler’s pro­gram to develop an atomic bomb. Degussa was instru­men­tal in equip­ping Sad­dam Hus­sein with his nuclear capa­bil­ity in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

“The inten­sive bomb­ing of Leuna led to a curi­ous con­fronta­tion between Buete­fisch, who was in charge of Leuna, and Paul Harteck, lead­ing nuclear sci­en­tist work­ing on Germany’s atomic bomb project. Part of Leuna was devoted to the man­u­fac­ture of heavy water, a nec­es­sary com­po­nent of atomic energy. After the first bombs fell on Leuna, Buete­fisch informed Harteck that the heavy water instal­la­tion must be aban­doned. He claimed that the mas­sive bomb­ing could not have been aimed at fuel pro­duc­tion since there was a ‘gentlemen’s agree­ment’ between heavy indus­try in Ger­many and abroad that I.G.‘s syn­thetic gaso­line plants would not be bombed. The only expla­na­tion for the raids against Leuna, there­fore, was the heavy water facility.”

(Idem.)

25. As one observes the maneu­ver­ing on the inter­na­tional and eco­nomic stages, bear in mind the com­plex CDU fund­ing scan­dal that linked the French Elf oil com­pany with a com­plex series of trans­ac­tions involv­ing the Thyssen firm, Saudi Ara­bia, the Leuna refin­ery in East Germany.

Air­bus and the mys­te­ri­ous Karl-Heinz Schreiber are at the core of this scan­dal. The Ger­man dom­i­na­tion of cor­po­rate France is another fac­tor to con­sider in the con­text of the maneu­ver­ing around the Iraq war. Although it may appear to some that events dis­cussed above are ancient his­tory, they are actu­ally at the foun­da­tion of the under­stand­ing of the mod­ern world. Speak­ing of the CDU fund­ing scan­dal, The Finan­cial Times wrote:

“This could yet throw light on kick­backs paid by Elf over a deal between Mr. Mit­terand and Ger­man ex-chancellor Hel­mut Kohl to invest in the Leuna refin­ery in East Germany—an affair which helped bring Mr. Kohl down.”

(“French Trial Paints a Pic­ture of Graft on a Grandiose Scale” by Robert Gra­ham; Finan­cial Times; 4/22/2003; p. 14.)

Discussion

No comments for “FTR #411 The Bayer Facts: I.G. Farben and the Politics of Murder”

Post a comment