> The German subsidiaries of those companies, in Germany run by German citizens, still traded in Germany yes.
That sounds a bit simplistic, of course if the German government ceases their operation and severs ties to the US, there is not much to be done, on the other hand e.g. Ford employed slave labor even _before_ ties to the US company were cut [0].
While Nazi Germany is ultimately responsible for these atrocities; in my opinion: companies still have / should have a moral duty. Some companies are exploring their past, e.g. Coffee companies with their ties to human trafficking. I think we need more of that, even just acknowledging our past, because "with power comes great responsibility" and those large companies, more powerful as some smaller countries should be held accountable and should do everything to prevent abuse and exploitation.
You seem to focus on the economics only, I agree profit might not have been the right term, but if a company actively exploited people it shouldn't matter too much whether they turned a profit.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Germany#Use_of_forced_lab...
In general in war time the property of nationals of the country you’re at war with, in your country, remains their property. It can be frozen or confiscated or commandeered, sure, according to local law but confiscation is not the normal expectation. In Germany after WW2 the property of US companies was returned to their control, and vice versa for the assets of German companies in the US.
You use the term profit, but we don’t even know if those subsidiaries even made a profit during the war. They may have come out of the war better off than they started I suppose in theory, but given the devastation of German industry during the war that seems unlikely. Do you have any evidence the value of those subsidiaries in Germany was higher at the end of the war than when it started?
Even if it was, what would you propose be done about it?