The Mazal Library

©MAZAL LIBRARY

NMT05-T0151

NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNAL
Volume V · Page 151

[con…] fiscations were carried out for the very purpose of using the confiscated property for the housing of resettlers. These confiscations particularly occurred with reference to church property and hospitals and sanitoriums.

The defendant Lorenz, as chief of VoMi, confiscated property for use of VoMi, and he was opposed to the return of confiscated property to its original owner, the church.

Greifelt, in a letter to Himmler dated 17 December 1940, gives the following account of VoMi's activities with reference to the confiscation of property:

"Realizing 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 authorization issued by the Reich Leader on 30 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, sanatoriums, old people's homes, and especially convents. To a large extent this requisitioning was done with full collaboration of the minor administrative authorities."

In June 1943 Lorenz wrote Brandt, Himmler's secretary, concerning an inspection of certain camps, and in giving reasons for the full maintenance of the camp apparatus although the camps were only partly occupied, Lorenz said:

"* * * 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 organization, 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 Reich Leader SS, I have, so far, persistently opposed the surrender of these camps."

The evidence has clearly established the responsibility of Lorenz for the plunder and confiscation of public and private property belonging to enemy nationals without regard to military necessity; and for these acts Lorenz is criminally responsible.

On this specification of the indictment the evidence is inadequate to prove guilt on the part of the defendant Brueckner. Though he might have had knowledge of confiscations it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he actually was connected in any manner with confiscations.

On this specification of the indictment, the evidence is insuf- […ficient]

151