. NMT05-T0157
Volume V · Page 157
| Upon the evidence submitted, the defendant Meyer-Hetling is found not guilty on counts one and two of the indictment. |
| COUNT THREE |
| 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 three of the indictment. |
| OTTO SCHWARZENBERGER |
| Otto Schwarzenberger was chief of finance in
the Staff Main 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 lumpsum 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 an 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 |
