dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
others in the WVHA. The defendant Vogt went to Lublin and personally audited the accounts of Globocnik. The defendant Georg Loerner, in agreement with the Reich Ministry of Economics, allocated for disposition hundreds of carloads of clothing from Auschwitz and Lublin. His own factory in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp reprocessed confiscated furs and rags. The defendant Sommer was familiar with the repair of thousands of watches of exterminated Jews in the workshops of the Sachsenhausen concentration camps. The defendant Pook was chief of the dentists who supervised the extraction of gold teeth from corpses in all concentration camps under the jurisdiction of the WVHA. The third part of Action Reinhardt was the employment of the working ability of those Jews not initially marked for execution together with the utilization of the confiscated industrial facilities. The WVHA was active in this phase of the program. In order to coordinate these economic enterprises, the Eastern Industries Limited Liability Company (Ostindustrie GmbH), commonly called "Osti," was formed in March 1943. Its purposes were stated to have been: (1) to utilize the working capacity of the Jews by erecting industrial plants in connection with Jewish labor camps; (2) to take over commercial enterprises which had been maintained by the Higher SS and Police Leaders in the Government General; (3) to confiscate all Jewish machinery and raw materials; and (4) to utilize all former Jewish machines, tools, and merchandise which had been transferred to non-Jewish ownership. The sole partners of Osti were the defendants Pohl and Georg Loerner. They also served on the board of directors with the notorious Wilhelm Krueger. The business managers were Globocnik and a Dr. Max Horn, an SS economic administrator appointed to Krueger's staff at Krakow by Pohl. Part of the capital for Osti was furnished by the defendant Frank out of the Reinhardt fund. One of the more immediate reasons for the organization of Osti was to establish iron foundries in the vicinity of Lublin. The WVHA expected to derive the machinery and other equipment for this enterprise from the Warsaw action. Thus on 26 February 1943, Dr. Horn wrote to the defendant Hohberg: "The organization of the Osti cannot be effected at the
of Osti was to establish iron foundries in the vicinity of Lublin. The WVHA expected to derive the machinery and other equipment for this enterprise from the Warsaw action. Thus on 26 February 1943, Dr. Horn wrote to the defendant Hohberg: "The organization of the Osti cannot be effected at the originally intended pace. The resettlement of the Jewish enterprises will probably last until June of this year, so that Osti will only be able to start properly by July of this year. Besides the utilization of the movable Jewish property in Warsaw must be started, a matter which I have not been able to attend to so far. I will start to take up this problem next week." The unexpected resistance put up by the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, which has already been described, largely frustrated the plans for an iron industry in Lublin since substantial quantities of machinery were destroyed. There were some 18 manufacturing establishments controlled by Osti, employing altogether about 52,000 slave laborers. These plants included a glass works, a textile mill, a peat cutting plant, an iron foundry, a brush manufacturing plant, a stone quarry, and finally, a pharmaceutical laboratory. In November 1943, the remaining Jews in the Lublin area were exterminated. This deprived Osti of its principal source of labor and, except for the glassworks which was operated by Polish slave labor, it was liquidated and the assets taken over by the German Equipment Works under the management of Amt W IV of the WVHA. The defendants Pohl, Georg Loerner, Baier, and Volk made an effort in January 1944 to secure the Lodz ghetto with its industrial equipment and 80,000 Jews for Osti, but the Reich Leader held that the ghetto should be left under the jurisdiction of the Gauleiter after the Jews had been reduced to a minimum by action of a "Sonderkommando". This then, was Action Reinhardt a coldly premeditated program of mass murder and gigantic theft visited upon a people whose only crime was that of failure to be born an Aryan. In scope and brutality the crime is without parallel Conclusion The prosecution has charged in the first three counts of the indictment that all of the defendants are responsible for the crimes alleged therein. This charge is based not only on the theory of conspiracy or participation in a common plan, but
Aryan. In scope and brutality the crime is without parallel Conclusion The prosecution has charged in the first three counts of the indictment that all of the defendants are responsible for the crimes alleged therein. This charge is based not only on the theory of conspiracy or participation in a common plan, but also on well-recognized principles of criminal liability. One need not be the trigger man to be guilty of murder. The criteria of criminality are clearly stated in Control Council Law No. 10, Article II, section 2. Any person is deemed to have committed a crime, if he was (a) a principal or (b) was connected with plans or enterprises involving its commission or (c) was a member of any organization or group connected with the commission of any such crime. And so in the case of the general and systematic commission of crimes in concentration camps all of the defendants are guilty. All of the defendants had substantial connections with the concentration camps, the very existence and operation of which necessarily involved murder, atrocities, torture, enslavement, and other inhumane acts. But, we shall no doubt have to listen to long and tedious lectures by each of the defendants to the effect that Amtsgruppe A, or B, or C, or W had nothing to do with the conditions in concentration campsthat such conditions were the responsibility of Amtsgruppe D, the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps. And when we come to the two defendants unfortunate enough to have worked in Amtsgruppe D, that is Sommer and Pook, they will tell us that they did everything in their power to improve conditions, that it was the dead Gluecks and Lolling who were responsible.* * * No, the responsibility for the crimes committed in concentration camps can no more be limited to Amtsgruppe D or to dead men than to the sadistic camp guards who found it amusing to subject their helpless victims to degrading tortures. The concentration camps were the very life blood of the whole of the WVHA. The Amtsgruppen were all interrelated in their purposes and activities. Each depended on the other to a greater or lesser degree. The administrators and accountants of Amtsgruppe A cannot escape the charge of murder when they
tortures. The concentration camps were the very life blood of the whole of the WVHA. The Amtsgruppen were all interrelated in their purposes and activities. Each depended on the other to a greater or lesser degree. The administrators and accountants of Amtsgruppe A cannot escape the charge of murder when they controlled the disposition of valuables of inmates killed by the millions in the camps of Auschwitz, Lublin, and Mauthausen; nor can the supply officers of Amtsgruppe B who ultimately controlled the food, clothing, and billeting for concentration camps and who were the recipients of train loads of clothing of exterminated Jews; nor can the construction engineers of Amtsgruppe C who used inmates to construct crematoriums, gas chambers, and underground factories; nor can the "business men" of Amtsgruppe W who worked inmates to death by the thousands in the granite quarries of Mauthausen and the brick factories in Poland and who used the labor of Jews until the moment they were driven away to gas chambers. * * * * * * * The vastness of the crimes committed and the nature of the organization involved forcefully poses the question: Why was the SS permitted to become a state within a state? It is our deep obligation to the German people and to the peoples of the world not to avoid or to evade that question. For the sake of these nameless millions who perished under the heel of the SS Germans and non-Germans let us not speak too softly or too late of the responsibility of every member of the community for its political weal! Let us not too soon lose sight of a collective civic responsibility to prevent the growth of such malignant organizations. Before the memory of these crimes die away let us speak of the duty of all patriotic and responsible men, in all walks of life, to protect the nations against such loathsome doctrines as these defendants preached and practiced. Here let the consequences be indelibly recorded of an organization based upon the execrable theories of racism. If there are those who doubt, let them come here and examine the documents which Himmler's vial of cyanide could not destroy, showing the world-wide carnage wrought by that organization; and all peoples may learn that a nation may not
indelibly recorded of an organization based upon the execrable theories of racism. If there are those who doubt, let them come here and examine the documents which Himmler's vial of cyanide could not destroy, showing the world-wide carnage wrought by that organization; and all peoples may learn that a nation may not be built upon persecution; that industry, no more than medicine or law may not be built upon death, destruction, and desecration; and that production may not be based upon pogroms, nor profits upon pillage. Today's misery exists the world over because these lessons were not sooner learned. B. Extracts From the Opening Statement for Defendant Pohl (9) DR. SEIDL: In the indictment which was served on him, 13 January 1947, the defendant Oswald Pohl is charged on all four counts of the indictment . In count one of the indictment he is charged with having participated in a common plan with the intent of perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity. In counts two and three of the indictment he is charged with personal responsibility in the perpetration of war crimes and crimes against humanity, while in count four of the indictment he is charged with having been a member of an organization which was found to be felonious by the International Military Tribunal . Count One - The Common Plan or Conspiracy In count one of the indictment the defendant Oswald Pohl is charged between January 1933 and April 1945, together with the other defendants and several other persons following a common plan, with having participated in an illegal manner and with malice aforethought, in an agreement to perpetrate war crimes and crimes against humanity, as they are defined in the Control Council Law No. 10, Article II . The indictment contains no statements which are based on facts and which reveal in detail the existence of such a scheme with regard to its period of initiation and its purpose. The indictment is restricted essentially to legal arguments in general the center of which is the Economic and Administrative Main Office under the defendant Oswald Pohl. The indictment itself contains no reference to the legal provisions on which, in count one of the indictment, the maintained common plan has its legal basis. Therefore, the question as to whether the Control
in general the center of which is the Economic and Administrative Main Office under the defendant Oswald Pohl. The indictment itself contains no reference to the legal provisions on which, in count one of the indictment, the maintained common plan has its legal basis. Therefore, the question as to whether the Control Council Law No. 10 can provide legal reasoning for this count of the indictment must be examined. In consideration of the fact that in Control Council Law No. 10 of 20 Decmeber 1945, paragraph 1, the London Agreement , dated 8 August 1945, relating to the prosecution and punishment of major war criminals of the European Axis powers, has been incorporated as an inseparable part of this law, the statute for the International Military Tribunal must also be referred to when examining this question, since this statute on the other hand, represents an essential part of the London Agreement of 8 August 1945. Just as in the present trial, the prosecutors of the four signatory powers of the London Agreement , in the trial against Hermann Goering and others, have regarded the "common plan or the conspiracy" as an independent count of the indictment and as a major count in the center of the indictment . The indictment described the purpose of this common plan as not only a preparation for a war of aggression but also the planning of war crimes against humanity. The prosecution is opposed to this, and the International Military Tribunal also has decided in its verdict of 20 September 1946, that the statute does not warrant an extension of the common plan of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Military Tribunal, in its verdict has stated the following: " Count one of the indictment covers not only the conspiracy for the purpose of conducting aggressive warfare, but also the conspiracy for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Apart from the conspiracy of conducting aggressive warfare, the statute does not describe any kind of conspiracy as an especial crime. Article 6 of the statute provides for: "Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices who have taken part in the execution of the common plan or common conspiracy for perpetrating one of the
of conducting aggressive warfare, the statute does not describe any kind of conspiracy as an especial crime. Article 6 of the statute provides for: "Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices who have taken part in the execution of the common plan or common conspiracy for perpetrating one of the above crimes are responsible for all deeds which have been perpetrated by any persons in carrying out such a scheme. "According to the opinion of the Court, these words do not add a particular new crime to the crimes already enumerated. The words serve to establish the responsibility of those persons who are associated with a common plan. The Tribunal will therefore disregard the charges contained in count one of the indictment, that the defendant took part in a conspiracy for perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity, and consider solely the common plan to prepare, start, and carry out wars of aggression." Thus there can be no doubt that, according to the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at any rate, this does not constitute a common conspiracy for the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity. Moreover, the question should be examined whether the Control Council Law No. 10 of 20 Decmeber 1945 provides sufficient legal basis for count one of the indictment . This question must be answered in the negative for the following reasons. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal of 8 August 1945 has become, by Article I of the Control Council Law , an integral part of this law. As a law of the four signatory powers of the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 it is without doubt a legal source of special importance. For this reason, therefore, it must be considered improbable that a law of the Control Council could contradict the regulations of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal or the interpretation which the Charter had acquired through the International Military Tribunal. Moreover, it should be added here that every law should be considered as a complete unity in itself. Considering the regulation placed at the head of this Control Council law that the Charter of the International Military Tribunal was an essential and inseparable part of
the International Military Tribunal. Moreover, it should be added here that every law should be considered as a complete unity in itself. Considering the regulation placed at the head of this Control Council law that the Charter of the International Military Tribunal was an essential and inseparable part of this law, it must be regarded as out of the question for this law to make statements which contradict the Charter . We may, therefore, consider that the Control Council law does not present sufficient reasons for count one of the indictment from a legal point of view. And indeed this law mentions only in a single place a common plan or conspiracy, namely, in Article II , paragraph 1 (a) when defining the concept of crime against peace. On the other hand, the characteristics of a war crime or crime against humanity, as defined from the point of view of criminal law in Article II , paragraph 1 (b) and (c) contain no adequate further explanation of the concept in the sense of a common plan or conspiracy. Article II, paragraph 2 of the Control Council Law No. 10 , which describes in detail the characteristic symptoms for determining participation, also gives no indication that the common plan for the commission of a war crime or a crime against humanity constitutes an independent criminal offense. This refers especially to paragraph 2 (d). Here anyone connected with the planning or perpetration of any of the crimes mentioned under paragraph 1 is threatened with punishment. From the working of the law and especially of the English text it is clear that this cannot mean the legal institution of the "common plan or conspiracy" in the technical sense. The wording of the Control Council Law No. 10 and its connection with the Charter of the International Military Tribunal , as well as with the interpretation which the Charter has acquired through the verdict of this Military Tribunal, allow us to conclude with certainty that this law at any rate cannot present a legal basis for count one of the indictment . To supplement Control Council Law No. 10 of 20 December 1945, the US Military Government of Germany issued Ordinance No. 7 which is concerned with
of this Military Tribunal, allow us to conclude with certainty that this law at any rate cannot present a legal basis for count one of the indictment . To supplement Control Council Law No. 10 of 20 December 1945, the US Military Government of Germany issued Ordinance No. 7 which is concerned with the constitution and authority of certain military courts. As can be seen from the heading of this decree itself, it is not intended to introduce new legal standards but only to regulate the constitution of these military courts and to make public directions for procedure. Nevertheless, Article I contains the statement that these military courts are to be authorized to judge and punish persons indicted for an act punishable under Article II of Control Council Law No. 10 or of conspiring to commit such a crime. Therefore, the question arises whether Article I of Ordinance No. 7 of the Military Government of Germany can be regarded as a sufficient legal basis for count one of the indictment, since Control Council Law No. 10 excludes this possibility. This question, too, is to be answered in the negative for. the following reasons: The composition and purport of Ordinance No. 7 show clearly that it is only designed to supplement Control Council Law No. 10 as far as questions of legal procedure and organization are concerned. Such a possibility has been envisaged in Control Council Law No. 10 itself. Article III , paragraph 2, of this statute states that provisions of the Control Council Law shall not encroach upon or limit the authority of any court of law already set up or which may in future be set up by the zone commander within their zone. If one proceeds from the assumption and, indeed, any other interpretation could be defended only with difficulty, that it is one of the tasks of the Control Council to issue uniform legal regulations and to guarantee the uniformity of the law for the whole of the territory of the German Reich occupied by the signatory persons of the Potsdam Agreement of 2 August 1945 , then one must exclude completely the possibility that individual zone commanders could have the right to change and enlarge penal regulations issued by the Control
the uniformity of the law for the whole of the territory of the German Reich occupied by the signatory persons of the Potsdam Agreement of 2 August 1945 , then one must exclude completely the possibility that individual zone commanders could have the right to change and enlarge penal regulations issued by the Control Council for Germany and obligatory for the whole of the occupied territory. Article III, paragraph 2 of Control Council Law No. 10 can only be interpreted to mean that the zone commanders shall have the right to issue regulations for punishment and for procedure in those cases in which no exhaustive provisions have as yet been made by the Control Council for Germany. From the wording of the Control Council Law it is clear that only the common plan to wage an aggressive war shall be punishable. Had it been the intention of the Control Council to make equally punishable a general intention directed towards the committing of war crimes or of crimes against humanity, then it would have said so and would have admitted a provision similar to that contained in Article II , paragraph 1 (a)-(c), where the legal definitions of war crimes against humanity are given. Argumentum e contrario it must be concluded that this, precisely, was not the intention of the Control Council. If one admitted the right of the zone commanders to change on their own authority the penal laws of the Control Council, this would constitute a violation of one of the fundamental principles, obviously decisive factors in the establishment of the Control Council, namely the maintenance of the uniformity of the law throughout the whole of the occupied territory. It is one of the principles of any legal system that particular and subsidiary penal law cannot contradict general penal provisions. With regard to this contradiction, the law issued by the Control Council for Germany must, take precedence, and only this law can be recognized as a legal basis for the passing of judgment, inasmuch as one is convinced that a law published after the act has been committed can be quoted as justification for punishment. And thus, we arrive at another question which arises as much from Control Council Law No. 10 as from Ordinance