Separatist Peoples wrote:'Nation A, partly using equipment produced in factory X, attacks nation B => Nation B fights back successfully, and actually manages to occupy the area [formerly held by Nation A] including factory X => Nation B has to pay the government of Nation A if it wants to use equipment from factory X in the completion of its fight against that aggressor' ?!?
Yep. Because Factory X was never owned by Nation B. You're justifying theft with emotional pleas.
OOC: This example (or rather your response to it) still seems a bit beyond the scope of what's reasonable during wartime. If the factory is government-owned in its initial state, then that counts as seizure of military assets for all intents and purposes. If it was privately owned, then I can see an argument for negotiating with the owner (or better, the workers who run it ) to either buy them out or buy their product. And if the occupying power is going to keep the factory running for its own efforts, those workers ought to be paid commensurately with the economics of the occupied territory. But requiring compensation between belligerents for the seizure of militarily relevant property or materiel during wartime is absurd.