Actually, the trusteeship was a pure fiction. It cannot be believed that it was ever the plan of the Reich to return any of the confiscated property to its former Jewish owners, most of whom had fled and disappeared or been exterminated. The only probative value of this fictitious trusteeship is to furnish another cord to bind Pohl closer to OST's criminal purposes.
In an attempt at partial exculpation, Pohl has submitted in evidence (Pohl Ex. 2) a decree, dated February 28, 1933, signed by Reich President Von Hindenburg and Chancellor Hitler, suspending the provisions of the Weimar Constitution, which guaranteed personal freedom, freedom of speech and of the press, the right of assembly, privacy of communication, and immunity from search. The Secret State Police were given almost unlimited power over persons and property, independent of any obligations and free from restraint or review. They became the supreme authority of the land. This tyrannical agency was the partner of WVHA in the administration of the concentration camps. Upon the promulgation of this decree, Germany became a Police State and the liberty and lives of all German citizens were dependent upon the whims of men like Heydrich and Kaltenbrunner. It is to be assumed that if this is the kind of national government the people of Germany preferred, they were entitled to it. If they consented to surrender their human liberties to a police force, that was their privilege, and any outsider who intruded could well be told to mind his own affairs. But when the attempt is made to make the provisions of such a decree extra-territorial in their effect and to apply their totalitarian and autocratic police measures to non-Germans and in non-German territory, they thereby invaded the domain of international law, where reason still rules. The Nazi leaders, drunk with power, could abuse and deceive the German people just as long as the German people submitted, but when they extended their tyranny into foreign lands and attempted to justify it by the provisions of local German law, their arrogance became over-extended and a power superior to Hitler's came into play to stop them.
In recapitulation and upon the findings of fact heretofore made, the Tribunal determines that the defendant Pohl is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as alleged in Counts II and III of the Indictment.
The Tribunal finds that the defendant Pohl was a member of a criminal organization, that is, the SS, under the conditions defined by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and is therefore guilty under Count IV of the Indictment.
AUGUST FRANK This defendant joined the SS as a private on May 1, 1932, and joined the National Socialist Party on January 1, 1933.
In 1933, the concentration camp at Dachau had a number of minor industries manned by inmate labor, most of which were concerned with concentration camp maintenance. From 1933 to 1935, this defendant was engaged in minor administrative duties in these comparatively small enterprises. In 1935, at the request of the defendant Pohl, this defendant became SS Administrative Officer of the Special Duty Troops (SSVT) and of the SS Death Head Units, which were charged with the guarding of the concentration camps. His jurisdiction in this second capacity was somewhat limited because Kaindl was the special liaison officer for the Death Head Units. In February 1940, this defendant became Chief Supply Officer of the Waffen-SS and Death Head Units under Pohl and, when the WVHA was organized in 1942, he became Pohl's Deputy Chief of WVHA and Chief of Amtsgruppe A, the administrative amtsgruppe of WVHA. He served in this capacity until September 1, 1943, when he was permitted to resign to become Administrative Chief of the Order Police, which terminated his connection with the WVHA.
In this case we are concerned with judging his conduct only between September 1, 1939, and September 1, 1943.
Amtsgruppe A, of which Frank was the Chief was the administrative branch of WVHA. It comprised five Aemter, as follows:
Amt A I - Office of Budgets Amt A II - Finance and Payroll Amt A III - Legal Matters Amt A IV - Auditing Office Amt A V - Personnel Only two specifications in Counts II and III of the indictment are involved in the consideration of Frank's case - (1) the administration of concentration camps, and (2) Action Reinhardt.
At the outset it is best to dispel an illusion, which all defendants have tried to create, that the component Aemter Amtsgruppen in the WVHA were dissociated and isolated and operated with almost complete independence of each other. The contention of the defendants has been that each amt occupied a secluded cubicle which was so insulated that it was practically impossible for the members of one amt or amtsgruppe to know what was going on in another. This concept runs counter to the whole idea behind the organization of the WVHA, which was to consolidate and unify all the administrative functions of the SS. Not only the underlying plan of the organization but the nature of its functions make this contention entirely incredible. The administration of the concentration camps was a complex and intricate task, which was made further involved by the operation of the industries under Amtsgruppe W. Correlation and coordination were indispensable. Food, clothing, wages, labor supply, raw materials, financing, auditing, personnel and security - all these were integrated functions, each of which bore an intimate relation to every other. As a comprehensive undertaking, it was a unit.
With a personnel at the peak of about 1700, it was obviously impossible for each person to know exactly what the other was doing, but each person must have known that the entire group was taking some part, great or small, restricted or unlimited, in the main task of administering the fiscal affairs of the SS. For example, the work of Amtsgruppe C in concentration camp construction and maintenance necessarily impinged upon Amtsgruppe A, which provided the money, Amtsgruppe B, which provided the raw material, and Amtsgruppe D, which provided the labor. Again, Amtsgruppe D, which was directly in charge of concentration camps, was dependent upon Amtsgruppe A for money and personnel, upon Amtsgruppe B for food, clothing and billets, and Amtsgruppe C for construction and maintenance needs. As early as November 1941, Pohl suggested that meetings of all the W office chiefs be held periodically "to bring up for discussion all matters of general interest." Accordingly, Maurer issued an invitation to all the chiefs of W offices to attend a meeting on November 17th "in order to discuss questions and matters which concern all amts chiefs and which can serve as suggestions for them." Georg Loerner, Hohberg and Volk were present, among others. Again, in September 1943, Pohl called a meeting of W office chiefs, at which defendants Georg Loerner, Baier, Bobermin, Mummenthey, Klein and Volk were present with others. Pohl announced that the meeting had been called because it had been noticed that following the removal of some of the amts from Berlin "regular cooperation between the staff and the offices is not always assured. .....It is necessary more than ever before to cooperate very closely with the staff."
The isolation for which the defendants contend was in the very nature of things a myth, and every person in the organization must have known that the WVHA was charged with two tremendous and related tasks -the economic administration of the concentration camps and the operation of the W industries with the labor supply which the camps furnished. Had the various defendants been shrouded in the profound ignorance which each claims, Pohl never could have run the WVHA with anything near the outstanding success which he achieved.
The whole organization would simply have fallen apart for lack of cohesion.
What part, then, did the defendant Frank have in this industrial empire - an empire in which the chief problem of industry was adroitly solved by locking its labor supply behind barbed wire and paying it nothing? A man of more limited genius than Pohl could hardly have failed under those circumstances to show a profit.
First of all, Frank must conclusively be convicted of knowledge of and active and direct participation in the slave labor program. It cannot be imagined that he believed that all the inmates of the 20 concentration camps and the 165 labor camps scattered throughout the entire continent of Europe were German nationals, composed of habitual criminals, anti-Nazi and asocial persons, and others whom the Reich for security purposes thought best to imprison. He could not have been ignorant, for example, of Pohl's letter of June 26, 1942, to all amtsgruppen, stating that the head of every branch office which was provided with prisoners or prisoners of war for work was responsible for the prevention of escape, robbery and sabotage. He could not have been ignorant (because he himself dictated it) of Pohl's letter of July 28, 1942, to Himmler, discussing the commanders of many of the concentration camps and their qualifications and making recommendations for reassignments, detachments and promotions. As an incorporating partner with Georg Loerner in the leather and textile enterprise at Dachau, with an investment of 10,000 Reichsmarks which he protests came from some unknown source, Frank must have known that by April 1, 1941, 700 inmates of Ravensbruck were employed. When, in September 1942, Frank wrote to the garrison administrators at Lublin and Auschwitz and directed that the Jewish star be removed from the garments of deceased inmates, he must have been aware that the concentration camps were not populated exclusively by Germans. His testimony as a witness in his own behalf negatives any such ridiculous inference.
It must be concluded, therefore, that Frank knew that the slave labor was being supplied by the concentration camps on a tremendous scale. It must also be conclusively presumed that Frank knew that slavery constituted a crime against humanity.
As to Action Reinhardt, his connection is equally obvious. His counsel protests that "he did not work for the political aims of National Socialism." The answer to this is that he had to work for those aims. Germany was a one-party political state; National Socialism was Germany. The Party and the Reich were so inseparable, their aims and purposes were so interwoven, that it was impossible for anyone to have worked for the one without working for the other. It is futile to claim that the program of extermination of the Jews, or the ravaging of the eastern countries, or the program of enforced slave labor, or the devastation of conquered territory, stemmed from National Socialist policy but not from the Reich. The SS, in which Frank attained the high rank of Obergruppenfuehrer, was a National Socialist agency, and anyone who worked, as Frank did, for eight years in the higher councils of that agency cannot successfully claim that he was separated from its political activities and purposes.
It is his contention that he first became aware of the Jewish extermination program after hearing Himmler's Posen speech of October 4, 1943, a month after he had left the WVHA. It is his contention that, through the long series of acts relat ing to the disposition of the proceeds of Action Reinhardt before that date, he acted in the belief that the hundred million Reichsmarks of Jewish property, the 2,000 carloads of textiles, and the staggering amount of other loot arose from Jewish inmates who had died of natural causes and in the ordinary course of events.
The very magnitude of the inventory would have put a person much less naive than Frank on inquiry, and, of course, Frank's designation of the loot as "Jewish concealed and stolen goods" indicates a resort to secrecy and subterfuge which is entirely in conflict with his profession of innocent ignorance. But even if we were to give Frank's contention full faith and credit (which we do not), we come to the inescapable conclusion that if he was not a confederate in murder he certainly was in larceny. By what process of law or reason did the Reich become entitled to one hundred million Reichsmarks' worth of personal property owned by persons whom they had enslaved and who died, even from natural causes, in their servitude? Robbing the dead, even without the added offense of killing, is and always has been a crime. And when it is organized and planned and carried out on a hundred-millionmark scale, it becomes an aggravated crime, and anyone who takes part in it is a criminal.
It is Frank's contention that he did not know and had no means of knowing of the Jewish extermination program or that the vast amount of property accruing from Action Reinhardt resulted from the violent killing of Jews in concentration camps. He states that he believed that the property came from Jews who had died from natural causes, the number of whom was greatly increased by epidemics, or from stock piles of merchandise seized during the invasion of the eastern countries. Both the amount and the nature of the goods seized make the acceptance of such a contention impossible. In a top secret communication to the chiefs of administration at Lublin and Auschwitz, dated September 26, 1942 (Ex. 472), a year before Frank left the WVHA, he speaks of the utilization of the property "of the evacuated Jews," and, as has been noted, refers to the goods as "originating from thefts, receiving of stolen goods and hearded goods."
He proceeds to specify the manner of distribution of the confiscated property, referring to the various articles by name. These are some of the articles which he claims to have assumed were seized from Jews who died from natural causes in concentration camps: Alarm clocks, fountain pens and mechanical pencils, electric razors, flashlights, feather beds, quilts, umbrellas, walking sticks, thermos jugs, baby carriages, table silver, bed and table linen, and furs. It is difficult to imagine a convey of Jews from the East, packed so tightly into freight cars that many died, carrying with them for their comfort and convenience such items as electric razors, feather beds, umbrellas, thermos jugs and baby carriages. It is equally incredible that they would be able to keep such articles in the concentration camps until they died of natural causes. It is fair to assume that the prisoners who froze to death or who died from exhaustion and exposure were not equipped with feather beds, quilts and woolen blankets. Nor can it be believed that before being herded off to Auschwitz or Lublin they were given an opportunity to gather up their collections of old coins and stamps with which to amuse themselves during their idle time.
The fundamental question now arises as to Frank's criminal responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of murders which were perpetrated in the concentration camps and which were followed by the wholesale confiscation of the property of the dead men. Assuming that Frank ultimately heard of the extermination measures, can it be said as a matter of law that his participation in the distribution of the personal property of the inmates exterminated makes him a participant or an accessory in the actual murders? Any participation of Frank's was post facto participation and was confined entirely to the distribution of property previously seized by others. Unquestionably this makes him a participant in the criminal conversion of the chattels, but not in the murders which preceded the confiscation.
We therefore cannot find from the proof that the defendant Frank is in law guilty of the murders of the Jews in the concentration camps, but we do find that he was guilty of participating and taking a consenting part in the wholesale looting which was described as Action Reinhardt.
Therefore, on two specifications - the slave labor program, heretofore, described, and the looting of property of Jewish civilians from the castern occupied countries - we find the defendant Frank guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The Tribunal finds that the defendant Frank was a member of a criminal organization, that is, the SS, under the conditions defined by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and is therefore guilty under Count IV of the Indictment.
HEINZ KARL FANSLAU This defendant joined the National Socialist Party and the AllgemeineSS on July 1, 1931.
On March 1, 1938, he become a member of the SS Special Units, which later came to be known as the Waffen-SS. In this organization he ultimately attained the rank of Brigadefuehrer (Brigadier General). In January 1934 he became an auditor in the SS Central Administration Office at Munich. Between that date and the organization of the WVHA in February 1942, he held various administrative posts in the SS organization, with the exception of the period from December 1, 1940 to September 30, 1941, during which he was Commander of the Supply Battalion of the SS Viking Division at the front.
Within the organization of the WVHA, he was Chief of Amt A V, the Personnel Office, and, upon Frank's resignation in September 1943, Fanslau succeeded him as Chief of Amtsgruppe A, the chief administration office of the WVHA. As chief of Amt A V, Fanslau's personnel work involved replacements, recruiting, discharges, promotions, assignments and transfers. Within this field he dealt indiscriminately with the Waffen-SS personnel and also with that of the concentration camps.
Although he did not have the power to actually appoint camp commanders, he did make recommendations to Himmler or to the Main Personnel Office, through Pohl, for their transfer, appointment or promotion, and he personally signed orders transferring camp commanders (Exs. 716, 720).
Much of the comment in this judgment as to the defendant Frank is equally applicable to the defendant Fanslau. As the officer in charge of personnel, he was as much an integral part of the whole organization and as essential a bog in its operation as any other of Pohl's subordinates. He was in command of one of the essential ingredients of successful functioning. This has no relation to "Group condemnation," which has been so loudly decried. Personnel were just as important and essential in the whole nefarious plan as barbed wire, watch dogs and gas chambers. The successful operation of the concentration camps required the coordination of men and materials, and Fanslau to a substantial degree supplied the men. He was not an obscure menial; he was a person of responsibility and authority in the organization, who was charged with and performed important and essential functions. As Chief of Amtsgruppe A after Frank's resignation he occupied a dominant position right near the top of WVHA. His claim that he was unaware of what was going on in the organization and in the concentration camps which it administered is utterly inconsistent with the importance and indispensability of his position. Whether or not he was aware of the cold-blooded program of extermination of useless concentration camp inmates, he must have been aware that millions of human beings had been herded into concentration camps in violation of all their rights and solely because Germany needed their labor, to work under the most inhumane circumstances.
The Tribunal finds without hesitation that Fanslau knew of the slavery in the concentration camps and took an important part in promoting and administering it. This being true, he is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Evidence was introduced that while defendant Fanslau was in command of the Supply Battalion of the Viking Division, which was engaged in the campaign against Russia in the Ukraine, a number of atrocities were perpetrated against the Jews in the vicinity of Tarnapol by the troops under Fanslau's command. The character of this proof has made the Tribunal reluctant to accept it as true beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence as to Fanslau's participation in these events was almost entirely hearsay and rumor, sprinkled with conclusions. Only the witness Otto claimed to have personal knowledge upon which to base his testimony. In view of the history of this witness, medical and otherwise, the Tribunal is unwilling to accept his testimony as true, especially when related to such a serious accusation. The number of military units which were present on the occasion - SS Einsatzgruppen, SD troops, Wehrmacht members, Ukrainian Police, and others - make identification of the actual perpetrators unreliable.
The Tribunal therefore finds that no criminal responsibility attaches to defendant Fanslau's conduct as an officer of the Viking Division.
The Tribunal finds that the defendant Fanslau was a member of a criminal organization, that is, the SS, under the conditions defined by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and is therefore guilty under Count IV of the Indictment.
HANS LOERNER Defendant Hans Loerner joined the National Socialist Party on January 1, 1932, and the Allgemeine-SS on April 1, 1933.
He served as an administrative officer of the Allgemeine-SS until he was transferred to the Waffen-SS in October 1939, being later transferred to the Central Administration Office at Berlin, where he became a subordinate of Pohl as a personnel officer. He ultimately attained the rank of Obersturmbannfuehrer (lieutenant Colonel) in the SS. Upon the organization of WVHA in 1942, he was appointed Chief of Amt A I, the Office of Budgets. In April 1944, when Gustav Eggert, Chief of Amt A II, was transferred to a field unit, Amts A I and A II were combined, and Loerner became Chief of both Amts.
Amt A II was concerned with finance and payroll matters. In the summer of 1944 he became Deputy Chief of Amtsgruppe A.
It is Loerner's contention that, with the adoption of the open budget at the beginning of the war, his duties greatly diminished and subsequently all but disappeared, and that the only substantial task left for him to perform was the simplification of the Todt Organization, to which most of his time was devoted. The fact remains, however, that Loerner continued to perform important administrative duties in connection with his amt all through the war. It is hardly conceivable that he would have been retained as head of an office which had entirely lost its usefulness. On May 11, 1942, Loerner and Frank conducted negotiations for six days with the Reich Minister of Finance on the SS budget, involving the number, rank and salaries of personnel. In September 1942 Loerner rendered a report to the Reich Court of Accounts, stating that seven collecting camps for "undesirable Polish elements" near Danzig had already been established. He further reports that construction of a much larger camp, Stutthof, was begun at the end of 1939.
In October 1942, Loerner wrote that Himmler had ordered the Ahnenerbe to establish an Institute for Scientific Military Research, the expenses of which were to be met from funds of the Waffen-SS, and instructed that "bills due were to be handed in to this office for payment." In November 1942, Sievers, who was one of the principals in the Ahnenerbe program, notes that he had discussed in detail with Loerner the plan to have the expenses of the Institute for Scientific Military Research met by the SS. The Institute referred to was a part of the over-all plan for using concentration camp inmates for medical experiments, but there is no evidence that, either through Sievers or otherwise, Loerner became aware of the criminal purposes of the Institute.
During 1942 and 1943 Loerner was greatly concerned with the fixing of wage scales for the Waffen-SS.
In connection with the concentration camps, Kaindl, and later Berger of Amt D IV, Concentration Camp Administration, assembled the budget items for the concentration camps and passed them on as part of the entire budget of the Waffen SS to Loerner in Amtsgruppe A, who reviewed it and put it in shape to be transmitted to the Main Department of Finance in Berlin.
After Loerner took over the control of Amt A II, his connection with the administration of the concentration camps became even more intimate, for here he was confronted by problems of financing and meeting payrolls. Eichele, who was Paymaster of the Waffen-SS, with an office in Dachau, states (Ex. 514):
"In my work in the pay office I was subordinate to Amts A I and A II of the WVHA, of which Hans Loerner was the head."
Requisitions for wages for SS personnel were made to Loerner in Office A I. In the establishment of wage scales for concentration camps, Pohl ordered that Loerner be consulted.
From this proof it becomes quite apparent that the defendant Hans Loerner was anything but a figurehead in the WVHA. In spite of the diminishing importance of his office, he continued until the end to exercise vital and important functions within the structure of the WVHA in connection with its administration of the concentration camps. He was more than a mere bookkeeper. He exercised discretion and judgment and made important decisions, many of which related directly to the procurement and operation of concentration camps. To say the least, he took a consenting part in and was connected with the operation and administration of the concentration camps, which, as has been already pointed out, operated with a program of slave labor throughout the war.
By reason of his direct and intimate association with this program, defendant Hans Loerner must be deemed to be guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The evidence upon which it is sought to criminally implicate the defendant Hans Loerner in Action Reinhardt is in the opinion of the Tribunal insufficient to justify a conclusion of guilt on this specification.
The Tribunal finds that the defendant Hans Loerner was a member of a criminal organization, that is, the SS, under the conditions defined by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and is therefore guilty under Count IV of the Indictment.
JOSEPH VOGT The date at which Vogt joined the National Socialist Party is uncertain due to contradictions in the proof, but it was either in 1920 or 1937 or 1938.
The date of his entry into the SS is also indefinite. In his affidavit he states that he was never a member of the Allgemeine-SS, but his official service record contains the entry, "Oct.
1, 1936, entry into Allgemeine-SS." In any event, it is clear that he was a member of the Party and of the SS before the war. In the SS he attained the rank of Standartenfuehrer, or Colonel. Between 1936 and 1942, he served as an auditor, or in some related capacity, in various SS offices, and when WVHA. was organized in the spring of 1942, he became Chief of Amt A IV, the Office of Audits, under the defendants Frank and Fanslau, in which office he continued until the surrender. Certain departments of the SS were excluded from the auditing functions of Vogt's amt. Amtsgruppe C, the main construction office, had its own separate auditing service under defendant Eirenschmalz in Amt C VI; Amtsgruppe W, the economic enterprises, was independently audited; expenses for medical and welfare service were not audited by Vogt's amt, as was also true of the SS paymaster's office in Dachau. Only the stationary units of the Waffen-SS were subject to audit by Amt A IV; all mobile units were subject to audit by the Army Administration, and all SS offices in the occupied territories were independently audited on the spot. Amt A IV did audit the receipts and disbursements of about 300 garrison cashiers, together with the records of Amtsgruppen A, B and D of the WVHA. Vogt's duties were transcended those of an auditor. He was never a financial director; he did not authorize purchases, requisition material, direct distribution, order payment, or in any other way control fiscal policy. His sole task was to inspect and analyze the records (which others had made) of past transactions.
The prosecution seeks to inculpate Vogt on two grounds - that he took a consenting part in was connected (1) with the mistreatment of concentration camp inmates, or at least in the employment of slave labor in the camps, and (2) with the atrocities incident to Action Reinhardt.
As to the first specification, there is no claim that Vogt was either a principal in or an accessory to the actual mistreatment or enslavement of the concentration camp inmates.
The most that is claimed is that because of his position he must have known about them and therefore took a consenting part in and was connected with them. His consent is not objectively shown. He nowhere expresses or implies consent. The only consent claimed arises from imputed knowledge - nothing more. But the phrase "being connected with" a crime means something more than having knowledge of it. It means something more than being in the same building or even being in the same organization with the principals or accessories. The International Military Tribunal recognized this fact when they placed definite limitations on criminality arising from membership in certain organizations. There is an element of positive conduct implicit in the word "consent". Certainly, as used in the ordinance, it means something more than "not dissenting". Perhaps in the case of a person who had power or authority to either start or stop a criminal act, knowledge of the fact coupled with silence could be interpreted as consent. But Vogt was not such a person. His office in WVHA carried no such authority, even by the most strained implication. He did not furnish men, money, materials or victims for the concentration camps. He had no part in determining what the inmates should oat or wear, how hard they should work or how they should be treated. Nor is there any proof that he know what they did eat or wear, or how hard they did work or how they were treated. The most that can be said is that he know that there were concentration camps and that there were inmates. His work cannot be considered any more criminal than that of the bookkeeper who made up the reports which he audited, the typist who transcribed the audit report or the nail clerk who forwarded the audit to the Supreme Audit in Court.
ACTION REINHARDT In June 1943 there arose some suspicion of financial irregularities in the SS garrison treasury at Lublin, whereupon Frank ordered Vogt to proceed to Lublin to audit the treasury books.
During his audit, Vogt came across an "account R," containing the record of a very large amount of money on hand.
Vogt asked Wippern, Globocnik's deputy, what the account represented and was told that it was a secret which could not be disclosed. Vogt was told later, however, that the money had been confiscated from the Jews and then was shown a trunk full of jewelry and rare coins which was kept in a safe. The next day Wippern shewed him a house stored with clothing which Wippern said had come from the confiscation. Before leaving Lublin, Vogt complained to Globocnik that the record of this account was not properly kept and that Globocnik did not have proper certificates identifying the owners of the property. He also commented that the Supreme Auditing Court had no notice of the fund and had no opportunity to audit it, as was their right and duty. After some controversy, Vogt and his assistant, Hahnefeld, returned to Berlin and reported to Frank and Pohl, and also to Knebel, a representative of the Supreme Auditing Court.
No further audit of the Reinhardt Fund was made by Vogt, nor does it appear that he ever did anything further in connection with it except to write a letter on March 15, 1944, to all WVHA advisors asking whether they had any receipts or expenditures in connection with the evacuation of the Jews which had not been settled. This letter was written in pursuance of Pohl's order of December 9, 1943, directing that upon completion of the resettlement operation vouchers were to be presented for audit to Vogt's Amt A IV. Vogt's letter of March 15, 1944, was merely a final check on compliance with Pohl's order.
Except for the audit of June 1943, above referred to, Vogt made no further audit of the proceeds of Action Reinhardt, but subsequent audits were made by Melmer, who had no connection with Vogt or his amt.
It will be observed that this audit by Vogt of the garrison treasury at Lublin was not in performance of his regular duties. It was a special assignment by Frank, impelled by unusual and urgent circumstances which called Vogt aside from his usual duties. It constitutes a single isolated instance in which Vogt came in contact with Action Reinhardt.
The question naturally arises, what should Vogt have done under the circumstances to avoid implication in Action Reinhardt? If his single experience amounted to taking a consenting part in or being connected with the felonious project, at least it can be said that he avoided all future experiences. At the time of his audit in Lublin. Action Reinhardt had been in progress for nearly two years and was near the point of conclusion. It was far too late to attempt to stop the launching of the cicious program even if Vogt had the power to do so. The harm had been done and he could not prevent it. He promptly reported his discoveries to his superiors and severed whatever slight connection he may have had with the project. He had inadvertently stumbled upon evidence of a crime which had already been committed. Instead of trying to conceal it, he openly uncovered it and had no further connection with it, Again, the Tribunal is impelled to ask, what should he have done? Unless we are willing to resort to the principle of group responsibility and to charge the whole German nation with these war crimes and crimes against humanity, there is a line somewhere at which indictable criminality must stop. In the opinion of the Tribunal, Vogt stands beyond that line.
The Tribunal therefore finds the defendant Vogt not guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged in the Indictment.
The Tribunal finds the defendant Vogt not guilty under Count IV of the Indictment.
GEORG LOERNER Defendant Georg Loerner joined the National Socialist Party in November 1931 and became a member of the SS the following year.
His highest rank in the SS was Gruppenfuehrer, or Major General. In May 1935 he was employed in the administrative office of the SS at Munich, and in the fall of that year he was given the assignment of organizing a department for clothing supply. In May 1939 he was transferred to Berlin, where he carried on the same task of supplying clothing and personal equipment to the SS troops upon requisition of the various units.
Until April 1936, clothing for concentration camp inmates was supplied by the several local governmental units. After that date the task of supplying clothing for camp inmates as well as the SS armed units was taken over by the SS Administrative Office, of which the defendant Pohl was the head. This was Georg Loerner's initiation into concentration camp administration.
When the WVHA was organized in February 1942, Loerner became Chief of Amtsgruppe B, which, among other duties, was charged with the supply of food and clothing to all stationary armed units of the SS (excluding armed forces in the field) and to the concentration camp inmates. In addition, Loerner was Deputy Chief of Amtsgruppe W: which administered the economic enterprises owned or controlled by WVHA. After the defendant Frank left the WVHA in September 1943, he was succeeded by Loerner as Deputy Chief of the WVHA under Pohl.
From these three responsible positions hold by Loerner, it will be seen that he was not an obscure subordinate in the WVHA organization. Each of the positions which he held required a broad measure of responsibility, which the documents in the case indicate he exercised in full.
CONNECTION WITH W ENTERPRISES With Pohl, defendant Georg Loerner was one of the incorporating partners in the German Economic Enterprises, known as "DWB", which was the holding company having control of nearly all of the W Enterprises.
He was an original incorporator with the defendant Frank of the leather and textile enterprise at Ravensbruck, and with Pohl was one of the organizers of OSTI, with an initial contribution of 25,000 Reichsmarks. He was also Vice-Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the Golleschauer Portland Cement Company, of which Pohl was the Chairman. In addition, he was a director of the Cooperative House and Home Building Company at Dachau. All of these companies were units of Amtsgruppe W, of which Loerner was Deputy Chief under Pohl.
