. ©MAZAL LIBRARY

NMT05-T1180


. NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNAL
Volume V · Page 1180
Previous Page Home PageArchive
 
The provisions of Article II, paragraph 2, of Control Council Law No. 10, are clear and unambiguous. It enumerates, in a descending scale of culpability, the persons who are deemed to have committed crimes:
 
(1) Principals.

(2) Accessories or abettors.

(3) Persons taking a consenting part.

(4) Persons connected with plans or enterprises involving its commission.

(5) Members of certain organizations or groups.

(6) Holders of high political, civil, or military positions.
The burden of most of the defense briefs is that the defendants do not come within class 1, so Q.E.D., they are innocent. That is exactly the position taken by counsel for Frank, as indicated by his argument quoted above. Of course, he was "removed" from the fountain head of the criminal project but not removed far enough to escape implication in it. Much time and language has been spent in these trials in ingenious attempts to distort or evade the plain meaning of the clear language of Control Council Law No. 10, especially Article II, paragraph 2. Frank's efforts to do this are futile.

After a careful review of the entire evidence and a thorough study of defense counsel's brief, the Tribunal is of the opinion that no reason has been disclosed for modifying or amending the judgment entered on 3 November 1947 as to the defendant Frank and said judgment is accordingly affirmed in all respects including the sentence imposed thereunder. 
 
GEORG LOERNER 
 
On behalf of the defendant Georg Loerner, it is claimed that Document NO-2147, Pros. Ex. 30, designated as a report of Georg Loerner and others to Pohl, which was referred to in the original judgment as a "significant document", was not, in fact, signed by Loerner. This contention is correct, but it must be stated that in the English translation of this document contained in document book 2, page 46, the document purports to have been signed by Loerner, and his typed signature appears at the end of the translated document. This exhibit was admitted in evidence without objection, and the only form in which it came to the Tribunal was translated into English in document hook 2. It was only after the judgment had been entered that attention was called by defense counsel to the fact that the original German document  

 
 
 
1180
Next Page NMT Home Page