. NMT05-T1181
Volume V · Page 1181
| bore the signature of Kammler instead of
Loerner, a fact which it was impossible for the Tribunal to know before writing
the judgment. If this document constituted the only proof against Loerner, his guilt would, of course, not be established, but even after discarding this document as we do, there remains an overwhelming quantum of evidence which is amply sufficient to establish his guilt. Had the Tribunal never seen Document NO-2417, Pro.. Ex. 30, it would nevertheless have arrived at the same conclusion. Counsel for Loerner insists that Document NO-1990, Pros. Ex, 73, referred to in the original judgment (Tr. p. 8118), and which is a report from Burger of Office D IV to Loerner stating that over 600,000 additional prisoners from the East were expected immediately for confinement in concentration camps, proves nothing, because the 600,000 prisoners never actually arrived, but only a small percentage of them actually reached concentration camps. Counsel for defense entirely misconceives the significance of this exhibit. The size of the group of anticipated arrivals may mean little, but the fact that there was included in the list former Polish officers, advised Loerner of the fact that it was common practice to commit prisoners of war to concentration camps to be employed in war work. Leaving out all figures from this exhibit, it was sufficient to inform Loerner of this unlawful practice, and the fact that Burger felt obliged to report to Loerner on this subject fixes Loerner's responsibility as a participant. Loerner's counsel contends now (but not at the trial) that this letter was merely a subterfuge, with fictitious figures used, to assist Loerner in securing larger allotments of clothing and raw materials for the slaves and prisoners of war who actually were in the concentration camps. If that was its purpose, the motive cannot be condemned, but it conclusively shows Loerner's knowledge of the fact of slave labor. He knew there were some slaves in the camps, even if less than 600,000, and that it was his task to procure clothing for them. How can it be said that this did not constitute a "consenting part" in the crime of enslavement? Was he not "connected with a plan and enterprise" involving enslavement? Some testimony was offered from which it might be inferred that Loerner was responsible for the furnishing of food to concentration camp guards and inmates. This testimony later repudiated or explained by the witnesses who offered it, and the Tribunal now places no reliance upon it. The Tribunal now finds that Loerner was not responsible for the furnishing of food |
