TRIAL OF ULRICH GREIFELT AND OTHERS

UNITED STATES MILITARY TRIBUNAL, NURBMBERG,

10TH OCTOBER, 1947-10TH MARCH, 1948

Part III

Part I  Part II  Part III Part IV  Part V  Part VI

(x) Plunder of Public and Private Property

The execution of the racial programme in the sphere of forcible resettlement lead to extensive plunder’of private and public property by the Office for the Strengthening of Germanism and the associated organisations.

In August, 1942, Greifelt submitted a report to Himmler concerning the incorporated territories in Poland. The report revealed that, in four Eastern “ Gaus ” only, the total number of confiscated farms and estates amounted to 626,642 with an approximate total area of 14 million acres.

No compensation was ever paid for the land confiscated, and the only compensation envisaged at one time, without ever being made, was that concerning the land in the Government General of Poland. This was shown in a memorandum of Greifelt concerning a conference held with Hitler on 12th May, 1943 :

“ The Reichsfuehrer SS has pointed out that the property in question in the incorporated Eastern territories was formerly German property which was robbed in 1918 and for which no one can demand compensation. On the other hand, the situation in the Government General is different since the Poles there are still owners of their property. In so far as this property will be utilised for German resettlement measures, one could, therefore, consider a compensation for the previous owner.”

With regard to property confiscated from Jewish owners no compensation at all was contemplated. This was disclosed in another memorandum of Greifelt’s, written in December, 1942, where it was stated that “ the Reichsfuehrer SS (Himmler) had signed a general directive whereby the entire Jewish real estate was to be placed at the disposal of the Office for the Strengthening of Germanism.”

The fact that confiscations were carried out in order to Germanize the territories affected, was stressed by Greifelt in a letter to Himmler of 23rd February, 1941 :

“ After having issued your carrying-out decree concerning the treatment of the population in the Eastern occupied countries of 12.9.1940,

p.26

you will find it necessary to issue instructions concerning the treatment of the property belonging to persons included in Groups III and IV of the ‘ List for the Repatriation of German ethnic Groups ’ and this for the agricultural as well as for the trade sections. . . .

“ In the interest of Germanizing the country as fast and as effectively as possible and of separating from both these groups their property located in the occupied Eastern territories as soon as feasible, my office is of the opinion that real estate situated in the Annexed Eastern areas, and belonging to members of Groups III and IV of the List should be expropriated. . . .

“ My office proposes to expropriate the property of these persons under the law concerning the treatment of property belonging to nationals of the former Polish State. . . .”

Confiscations were carried out in such a ruthless and indiscriminate manner that it caused the Reich Minister of Justice to enter a protest against the extent of confiscation of Polish property. In a letter to Hitler of 22nd May, 1942, the Minister reported the following :

“ During the execution of this order . . . the Poles were robbed not only of their technical appliances but also of their food and personal articles and clothes.

“ The Polish inhabitant who has been left practically without means after the extent of the confiscation, has become very agitated, which might result in further expressions of hate and acts of sabotage against Germans. The action will also have bad effects as far as nutrition policies are concerned.”

To this Greifelt replied on 8th July, 1942, in the following terms :

“ Since these Poles began to steal the fodder for their animals after they had lost their agricultural enterprises, and furthermore because the resettlers were in want of the missing live and dead stock which belonged to the farms, it became necessary for economic reasons to confiscate this stock and to return it to the now German farms, to which it belonged .”

In addition to ruthlessness special care was taken to carry out confiscations in the utmost secrecy and hide them from public opinion at large. Opposing a loan plan which had been suggested by the Reich Minister of Finance, Greifelt wrote to Himmler on 21st October, 1943 :

“ On the basis of this figure it would be possible for everybody in foreign countries to calculate that the entire Polish house property without exceptions has been confiscated. The reasons for hesitation dictated by international law and foreign policy which in 1940 were conclusive for formulating the ordinance concerning Polish property in such a way that it could not be realised by any uninitiated person that actually all Polish property was supposed to be confiscated, would thus be thrown overboard.”

VOMI was directly connected with this policy of plunder. The evidence showed that many confiscations took place for the purpose of using the property for the housing of resettlers. Such confiscations were carried out by Lorenz under the guise of requisitions. Greifelt gave the following account

p.27

of VOMI’s activities in this respect in a letter to Himmler dated 17th December, 1940 :

“ Realising the impossibility of providing temporary housing accommodation for the resettlers by normal lawful means the Office for the Repatriation of Racial Germans was empowered by an authorisation issued by the Reichsfuehrer on 30th December, 1939, to requisition lodging space suitable for the communal housing of Racial German resettlers.

“ On the strength of this authority the Office for the Repatriation of Racial Germans has requisitioned a large number of inns, hospitals, sanatoria, old people’s homes and especially convents. To a large extent this requisitioning was done with full collaboration of the minor administrative authorities.”

Lorenz spoke openly of confiscations for Germanization purposes in a letter to Himmler’s secretary, Brandt, of June, 1943 :

" . . . Another reason for the maintenance of the camps . . . is the following :

“ The buildings confiscated there for the accommodation of resettlers mainly come from former church property. An unrestricted surrender of this property to the Wehrmacht, the National Socialist Public Welfare Organisation, etc., undoubtedly would result in this property gradually returning to the hands of the previous clerical owners. In order to prevent such a development, which is undesirable to the Reichsfuehrer-SS, I have so far, persistently opposed the surrender of these camps.”

The allegation of the prosecution that “ Lebensborn,” and more particularly its leading members Sollmann, Ebner, Tesch and Viermetz, were also involved in the plunder of property, was dismissed by the Tribunal on the following grounds :

“ While it appears from the evidence that Lebensborn utilised certain property formerly belonging to Jews, such as several hospitals, old people’s homes, and children’s homes, it further appears that these properties had already been confiscated by other agencies and were empty at the time Lebensborn took them over. . . . While there is evidence to the effect that in isolated instances Lebensborn also utilised a small amount of personal property for the welfare and maintenance of children under Lebensbom care, it has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Lebensborn actually confiscated such property without payment ; nor has it been established that any defendant connected with Lebensbom was connected with any plan or programme to plunder occupied territories.”

(xi) The Charge of Euthanasia

One of the accused, Hildebrandt, was charged “ with special responsibility for and participation in the extermination of thousands of German nationals pursuant to the so-called ‘ euthanasia programme’ of the Third Reich.” The evidence submitted by the prosecution was that a unit under him killed thousands of insane Germans in the area of Danzig, which the Nazis treated as incurable and doomed to die of their illness.

p.28

The Tribunal dismissed this charge on the grounds that the administration of death under Nazi legislation against citizens of the Third Reich only, did not constitute a crime against humanity.(Footnote 1: For more details, see pp. 33-34, below. See also Trial of Erhard Milch, Vol. VII of this Series, pp. 51-52)

(xii) Persecution and Extermination of the Jews

The Tribunal decided that charges brought against the defendants under this count had been established and proved in the parts dealing with punishments for sexual intercourse with Germans, deportations of foreign nationals, and plunder of property, as the victims in all these instances included Jews.

3. THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL

(i) Individual Guilt of the Accused

Thirteen accused were found guilty on one or more counts, and one was acquitted. Some were found guilty of only membership in criminal organisations. The counts referred to by the Tribunal were the following : Count 1, crimes against humanity ; Count 2, war crimes ; Count 3, membership in a criminal organisation.

Those found guilty were the following and for the following reasons :

ULRICH GREIFELT

“ The defendant Ulrich Greifelt, as Chief of the Main Staff Office and deputy to Himmler, was, with the exception of Himmler, the main driving force in the entire Germanization program. By an abundance of evidence it is established beyond a reasonable doubt, as heretofore detailed in this judgment, that the defendant Greifelt is criminally responsible for the following actions : kidnapping of alien children ; hampering the reproduction of enemy nationals ; forced evacuations and resettlement of populations ; forced Germanization of enemy nationals ; the utilisation of enemy nationals as slave labor ; and the plunder of public and private property.

“ The evidence submitted is insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant Greifelt’s guilt upon the following specific charges : Abortions on Eastern workers ; taking away infants of Eastern workers ; and the punishment of foreign nationals for sexual intercourse with Germans.

“ The defendant Greifelt is found guilty upon Counts I and 2 of the indictment. “ The Tribunal finds that the defendant Greifelt was a member of a criminal organisation ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is, therefore, guilty under Count 3 of the indictment.”

RUDOLF CREUTZ

“ Rudolf Creutz, as deputy to Greifelt, was an active participant in certain phases of the Germanization program, as has heretofore been set forth in detail in this judgment ; and it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant Creutz is criminally responsible for, and implicated

p.29

in, the following criminal activities : the kidnapping of alien children ; the forced evacuation and resettlement of populations ; the forced Germanization of enemy nationals ; and the utilisation of foreign nationals as slave labor.

“ Upon the following specific charges the evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion of guilt : Abortions on Eastern workers ; taking away infants of Eastern workers ; punishment of foreign nationals for sexual intercourse with Germans ; and hampering the reproduction of enemy nationals.

“ The defendant Creutz is found guilty upon Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment.

“ The Tribunal finds that the defendant Creutz was a member of a criminal organization ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is, therefore, guilty under Count 3 of the indictment.”

KONRAD MEYER-HETLING

“ Konrad Meyer-Hetling was Chief of the Planning Office within the Main Staff OfFice. During his entire period of service in this position, he was a part-time worker only, still retaining a professorship at the university of Berlin. Meyer-Hetling is a scientist of considerable world renown-an agricultural expert.

“ The prosecution’s case rests principally upon the ‘ General Plan East,’ a survey and proposed plan for the ‘ reconstruction of the East,’ prepared by Meyer-Hetling at Himmler’s request and submitted to Himmler on 28th May, 1942. It is the contention of the prosecution that this plan formed the basis for the measures taken in the incorporated Eastern territories and other occupied territories.

“ A consideration of General Plan East, as well as correspondence dealing with this plan, reveals nothing of an incriminatory nature. This plan, as contended by the defendant, envisaged the orderly reconstruction of the East -and particularly village and country-after the war. The plan plainly stated : ‘ According to plan, the achievement of the work of reconstruction will be spread over five periods of five years each, totalling 25 years.’ There is nothing in the plan concerning evacuations and other drastic measures which were actually adopted and carried out in the Germanization program. As a matter of fact, it is made quite plain by the evidence, as the defendant contended, that this General Plan East was never adopted and no effort was made to carry out its proposals. Actually, Himmler, instead of an orderly reconstruction, decided upon and pursued a drastic plan which in all its cruel aspects sought the reconversion of the East into a Germanic stronghold practically overnight. Of course, Meyer-Hetling is not responsible for these measures which he did not suggest.

“ Simply by virtue of his position as chief of planning, the prosecution would have the Tribunal assume that Meyer-Hetling was the person responsible for all planning and, consequently, the drastic actions taken must have had their origin in his planning. The difficulty with such an assumption is that there is no proof to support it. He is charged, for instance, with such

p.30

criminal activities as kidnapping alien children, abortions on Eastern workers, and hampering the reproduction of enemy nationals. Yet in thousands of pages of documentary and oral evidence, there is not a single syllable of evidence even remotely connecting him with any of these activities.

“ Upon the evidence submitted, the defendant Meyer-Hetling is found not guilty on Counts I and 2 of the indictment.

“ The Tribunal finds that the defendant Meyer-Hetling was a member of a criminal organization ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is, therefore, guilty under Count 3 of the indictment.

OTTO SCHWARZENBERGER

“ Otto Schwarzenberger was Chief of Finance in the Main Staff Office, As such, he dealt with the operational finances and expenses of all organizations charged in the indictment with participation in the Germanization program. He also handled operational finances of other organizations, such as DUT, DAG, EWZ, and UWZ.

“ Schwarzenberger has contended throughout the trial that, as Chief of Finance, his duties consisted almost entirely of paying out funds on lump sum requisitions submitted to him by various organizations, and that, as Chief of Finance, he had no power to approve or disapprove requisitions for funds, which was a duty resting solely with the Reich Minister of Finance, He contends, furthermore, that not even in the requisitions and bills submitted to his office was there anything indicating the purpose for which the funds were to be used or had been used, and he never had knowledge of the purposes for which these funds were being dispersed. Schwarzenberger’s contentions are supported by an abundance of evidence. It would appear from the evidence that Schwarzenberger’s principal task was to submit to the Reich Minister of Finance a budget containing the estimated operational needs of the various departments ; and upon approval by the Reich Minister of Finance, the funds were deposited with Schwarzenberger’s office for payment to the various organizations.

“ Volumes of documents have been introduced by the prosecution in this case-hundreds pertaining to the various organizations involved-and Schwarzenberger’s name is conspicuous in its absence among these documents. No documentary evidence of any incriminatory nature has been offered against this defendant ; yet the prosecution would have the Tribunal assume, as it is argued, that he held numerous conferences with all departments with reference to all financial matters and was intimately acquainted with all activities of the various departments. This is an assumption which the prosecution bases wholly upon the position held by the defendant and which is not supported by proof.

“ Upon the evidence submitted, the defendant Schwarzenberger is found not guilty on Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment.

“ The Tribunal finds that the defendant Schwarzenberger was a member of a criminal organisation ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is, therefore, guilty under Count 3 of the indictment.”

p.31

HERBERT HUEBNER

“ As Chief of Labor Staffs and the Resettlement Staff in Posen, Herbert Huebner was concerned in the forcible evacuation and resettlement actions as well as the slave labor program. Within the area under his jurisdiction and supervision, these actions were carried out on a large scale. One document, written by him, suffices to show his connection with these actions. Huebner, on 29th August, 1941, wrote to the SS Settlement Staff at Lodz and Posen as follows :

‘ According to the newest order of the Reich-Governor, the Poles who will have to be displaced in the course of the settlement must under no condition leave the Warthegau,--e.g., in order to be allocated for labor in Germany proper via the employment offices,-since the Poles will probably be needed later on as manpower (in this area). The Landraete (Chiefs of District Administration) will have to provide emergency work for them until large-scale projects will provide the possibility to make use of all available Polish manpower.

‘ The Reich Governor will instruct the Landraete tomorrow by circular letter to make all provisions to prevent the displaced Poles from leaving the Gau. The Landraete also were again urged to support the displacement measures in every way.

‘ I request you to comply with this order under all conditions and, where necessary, to instruct the Landraete to provide housing for the Poles to be displaced. In all cases they are to be informed in time of any planned displacement measures.’

“ It has been established by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Huebner actively participated in the forced evacuation and resettlement of foreign populations and the use of foreign nationals as slave labor.

“ The evidence is insufficient to authorise a conclusion of guilt on the part of Huebner with regard to the other specifications of the indictment.

“ The defendant Huebner is found guilty on Counts 1 and 2 of the indicment.

“ The Tribunal finds that the defendant Huebner was a member of a criminal organization ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is, therefore, guilty under Count 3 of the indictment.”

WERNER LORENZ

“ The defendant Werner Lorenz, as chief of VOMI, was an active participant in practically every phase of the Germanization program, as has heretofore been set forth in detail in this judgment. The evidence establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that Lorenz is criminally responsible for and implicated in the following criminal activities : the kidnapping of alien children ; hampering the reproduction of enemy nationals ; the forced evacuation and resettlement of foreign populations ; the forced Germanization of enemy nationals ; the utilisation of enemy nationals as slave labor ; the forced conscription of non-Germans into the SS and armed forces ;

p.32

and the plunder of public and private property. The evidence is insufficient to authorise a conclusion of guilt with regard to forcible abortions on Eastern workers.

“ The defendant Lorenz is found guilty upon Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment .

” The Tribunal finds that the defendant Lorenz was a member of a criminal organisation ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is, therefore, guilty under Count 3 of the indictment.

HEINZ BRUECKNER

” Heinz Brueckner, as head of the Amt VI of VOMI, actively participated in certain phases of the Germanization program, as has heretofore been set forth in detail in this judgment. It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is criminally responsible for and implicated in the following criminal activities : the kidnapping of alien children ; hampering the reproduction of enemy nationals ; the forced evacuation and resettlement of foreign populations ; the forced Germanization of enemy nationals ; and the utilisation of enemy nationals as slave labor.

“ The evidence is insufficient to authorise a conclusion of guilt on the part of Brueckner with regard to the other specifications of the indictment.

“ The defendant Brueckner is found guilty upon Counts I and 2 of the indictment.

“ The Tribunal finds that the defendant Brueckner was a member of a criminal organization ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is therefore, guilty upon Count 3 of the indictment.

OTTO HOFMANN

“ Otto Hofmann, as chief of RUSHA from 1940 to 1943, actively participated in the measures adopted and carried out in the furtherance of the Germanization program, as has heretofore been set forth in detail in this judgment. The evidence establishes beyond any reasonable doubt Hofmann’s guilt and criminal responsibility for the following criminal activities pursued in the furtherance of the Germanization program : the kidnapping of alien children ; forcible abortions on Eastern workers ; taking away infants of Eastern workers ; the illegal and unjust punishment of foreign nationals for sexual intercourse with Germans ; hampering the reproduction of enemy nationals ; the forced evacuation and resettlement of foreign populations ; the forced Germanization of enemy nationals ; and the utilization of enemy nationals as slave labor.

" The evidence is insufficient to prove this defendant’s guilt with regard to the plunder of public and private property. “ The defendant Hofmann is found guilty upon Counts 1 and 2 ‘of the indictment.

p.33.

“ The Tribunal finds that the defendant Hofmann was a member of a criminal organization ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is, therefore, guilty under Count 3 of the indictment.”

RICHARD HILDEBRANDT

“ Richard Hildebrandt was Higher SS and Police Leader at Danzig-West Prussia, from October, 1939, to February, 1943, and simultaneously he was Leader of the Administration District Danzig-West Prussia of the Allgemeine SS and Deputy of the RKFDV. From 20th April, 1943, to the end of the war, he was chief of RUSHA. From 1939 to 1945, while serving in these capacities, he was deeply implicated in many measures put into force in the furtherance of the Germanization program, as has heretofore been set forth in detail in this judgment. By an abundance of evidence, it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Hildebrandt actively participated in and is criminally responsible for, the following criminal activities : the kidnapping of alien children ; forcible abortions on Eastern workers ; taking away infants of Eastern workers ; the illegal and unjust punishment of foreign nationals for sexual intercourse with Germans ; hampering the reproduction of enemy nationals ; the forced evacuation and resettlement of populations ; the forced Germanization of enemy nationals ; and the utilisation of enemy nationals as slave labor.

” On the charge of euthanasia the Tribunal, while finding Hildebrandt not guilty within the scope of its jurisdiction, made the following statement concerning the criminal nature of euthanasia :

” Hildebrandt, as the sole defendant, is charged with special responsibility for and participation in the extermination of thousands of German nationals pursuant to the so-called ‘ Euthanasia program.’ It is not contended, that this program, insofar as Hildebrandt might have been connected with it, was extended to foreign nationals. It is urged by the prosecution, however, that notwithstanding this fact, the extermination of German nationals under such a program constitutes a crime against humanity ; and in support of this argument the prosecution cites the judgment of the International Military Tribunal as well as the judgment in the case of the United States of America vs. Brandt, Cast [should be Case-Ed.] No. 1. Neither decision substantiated the contention of the prosecution. For instance, in holding defendants guilty in the Brandt judgment, the Tribunal expressly pointed out that the defendants, in participating in this program, were responsible for exterminating foreign nationals. The Tribunal expressly stated :

‘ Whether or not a state may validly enact legislation which imposes euthanasia upon certain classes of its citizens, is likewise a question which does not enter into the issues. Assuming that it may do so, the Family of Nations is not obliged to give recognition to such legislation when it manifestly gives legality to plain murder and torture of defenceless and powerless human beings of other nations.

‘The evidence is conclusive that persons were included in the program who were non-German nationals. The dereliction of the defendant Brandt contributed to their extermination. That is enough to require this Tribunal to find that he is criminally responsible in the program.’

p.34

“ It is our view that euthanasia, when carried out under state legislation against citizens of the state only, does not constitute a crime against humanity. Accordingly the defendant Hildebrandt is found not to be criminally responsible with regard to this specification of the indictment.

“ The evidence is insufficient to implicate this defendant on the specification regarding the plunder of public and private property.

“ The defendant Hildebrandt is found guilty upon Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment.

“ The tribunal finds that the defendant Hildebrandt was a member of a criminal organization ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is, therefore, guilty under Count 3 of the indictment.

FRITZ SCHWALM

“ The defendant Fritz Schwalm was an active participant in certain phases of the Germanization program, as has heretofore been set forth in detail in this judgment. It has been established by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is criminally responsible for and implicated in the following criminal activities conducted in the furtherance of this program : kidnapping of alien children ; the forced evacuation and resettlement of populations ; the forced Germanization of enemy nationals ; and the utilisation of enemy nationals as slave labor.

“ Upon the other specifications of the indictment the evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion of guilt on the part of this defendant.

“ The defendant Schwalm is found guilty upon Counts I and 2 of the indictment.

“ The Tribunal finds that the defendant Schwalm was a member of a criminal organisation ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is, therefore, guilty under Count 3 of the indictment.”

MAX SOLLMANN

“ The defendant Max Sollmann, as chief of Lebensborn-together with that institution-is charged with criminal responsibility in three specifications of the indictment, namely, the kidnapping of alien children, taking away infants of Eastern workers, and the plunder of public and private property. With two of these specifications we have already dealt. We now consider the charge concerning the kidnapping of alien children.

“ It is quite clear from the evidence that the Lebensborn Society, which existed long prior to the war, was a welfare institution, and primarily a maternity home. From the beginning, it cared for mothers, both married and unmarried, and children, both legitimate and illegitimate.

“ The Prosecution has failed to prove with the requisite certainty the participation of Lebensborn, and the defendants connected therewith, in the kidnapping program conducted by the Nazis. While the evidence has disclosed that thousands upon thousands of children were unquestionably

p.35 kidnapped by other agencies or organisations and brought into Germany, the evidence has further disclosed that only a small percentage of the total number ever found their way into Lebensborn. And of this number only in isolated instances did Lebensborn take children who had a living parent. The majority of these children in any way connected with Lebensborn were orphans of ethnic Germans. As a matter of fact, it is quite clear from the evidence that Lebensborn sought to avoid taking into its homes, children who had family ties ; and Lebensborn went to the extent of making extensive investigations where the records were inadequate, to establish the identity of a child and whether it had family ties. When it was discovered that the child had a living parent, Lebensborn did not proceed with an adoption, as in the case of orphans, but simply allowed the child to be placed in a German home, after an investigation of the German family for the purpose of determining the good character of the family and the suitability of the family to care for and raise the child.

“ Lebensborn made no practice of selecting and examining foreign children. In all instances where foreign children were handed over to Lebensborn by other organizations after a selection and examination, the children were given the best of care and never ill-treated in any manner.

“ It is quite clear from the evidence that of the numerous organizations operating in Germany who were connected with foreign children brought into Germany, Lebensborn was the one organization which did everything in its power to adequately provide for the children and protect the legal interests of the children placed in its care.

“ Upon the evidence submitted, the defendant Sollmann is found not guilty on Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment.

“ The Tribunal finds that the defendant Sollmann was a member of a criminal organization ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is, therefore, guilty under Count 3 of the indictment.”

GREGOR EBNER

” Upon the evidence submitted, the defendant Gregor Ebner is found not guilty upon Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment.

“ The Tribunal finds that the defendant Gregor Ebner was a member of a criminal organization ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is, therefore, guilty under Count 3 of the indictment.

GUENTHER TESCH

“ Upon the evidence submitted, the defendant Guenther Tesch is found not guilty upon Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment.

“ The Tribunal finds that the defendant Guenther Tesch was a member of a criminal organization ; that is, the SS, under the conditions defined and specified by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and he is, therefore, guilty under Count 3 of the indictment.”

p.36

INGE VIERMETZ

“ Inge Viermetz was found not guilty on all counts and acquitted.”

(ii) The Sentences

The five accused found guilty of membership in a criminal organisation only, that is Meyer-Hetling, Schwarzenberger, Sollmann, Ebner and Tesch, were sentenced to a term of imprisonment equivalent to the time already spent in custody as suspects and accused persons. This amounted to various terms of less than 3 years in each case. The others were convicted as follows:

             At the time of going to press these sentences had not been confirmed.

Part I  Part II  Part III Part IV  Part V  Part VI