. NMT05-T1177
Volume V · Page 1177
| head of Amt D II (inmate labor commitments) was charged with filling requisitions for labor from the concentration camps. We recognize that neither Pohl nor Sommer were charged with labor procurement. That was the task of Sauckel and the Secret Police. Nor did Pohl or Sommer initiate requisitions for labor. But when a request for 1,000 laborers for Mauthausen or Auschwitz came into WVHA, through the Reich Ministry for Armament and War Production, Sommer, as Pohl's subordinate in Amt D II, filled the order and through him the required number of inmates was assigned. No juggling of words can make anything of this except "allocation of workers for the armament industry." As a striking example of inconsistency, compare this statement in defendants brief (p. 20): |
"This measure (the appointment of Sauckel as Plenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation) by Hitler also forced Himmler to remove the labor allocation of concentration camp inmates from the general jurisdiction of the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps and, by transferring it as a special task to the chief of WVHA (Pohl) as the proper authority, raise it to the ministerial level." |
| Let us look at them vis-à-vis (p. 17) : It was not possible that Pohl could allocate workers to the armament industries (p. 20). Himmler removed the labor allocation of inmates from the Inspectorate and transferred it to Pohl on a ministerial level. To these may be added a third inconsistent position (p. 21): |
"* * * it was Pohl's duty to supervise the smooth execution of all orders. The cooperation of all those engaged in this special task was the prerequisite for success." |
| That is exactly what the Tribunal has stated
and restated many times. That is exactly what Control Council Law No. 10
referred to in Article II, Paragraph 2. It was Pohl's "supervision of the
smooth execution" of criminal orders that makes his "prerequisite cooperation"
criminal. Much point has been made of Pohl's alleged mental and physical condition, arising from claimed brow beating and abuse, at the time he signed the numerous affidavits which were submitted in evidence. The evidence of such abuse is insinuated into this case by quoting from Pohl's testimony in Case No. 2 before another Tribunal more than 6 months after rendition of the judgment in this case. Each of the several affidavits signed by Pohl contained immediately before his signature the following statement: |
"I have read the above statement consisting of 3 (three) pages in the German language and declare that this is the full truth according to my best knowledge and belief. I have had the opportunity to make alterations and corrections in the above |
