. NMT05-T1227
Volume V · Page 1227
"It is therefore very doubtful whether the mere use of prisoners for unpaid work alone is sufficient to comply with the definition of the crime of enforcing so-called slave labor." |
| Here we repeat what was said in the original judgment, following the above observation: |
"But, if forcibly depriving a man of his liberty and then compelling him to work against his will without remuneration does not constitute slave labor, then the term has no meaning whatsoever." |
| Defense counsel states the judgment declared
that Volk had visited the Flossenbuerg concentration camp. The judgment did not
so state. The episode of the visit to Flossenbuerg is described in the
Mummenthey supplementary judgment and need not be repeated here. Dr. Klinnert denies that Volk knew that "internees of the concentration camps included prisoners of war." Document NO-1292 speaks of the "employment of an increased number of prisoners, prisoners of war and Jews," and not "prisoners of war and internees", as counsel says in his further brief: |
"The fact that prisoners of war and internees are mentioned separately, clearly shows that these prisoners of war were in PW camps and not in concentration camps, because otherwise they, too, would have been internees and there would have been no need to name them separately." |
| But here he overlooks the word "Jew". Using
his reasoning, there would be no object in mentioning "Jews" either because
they also would have fallen within the larger category of "internees". Nor is
his argument convincing that it was not proved that Volk knew of this document,
even though the accompanying letter bore the receiving stamp with Volk's
initials. One signs one's initials for a purpose and the only purpose here
would be to show that Volk had noted the contents of the document.
Defense counsel also says: |
"According to the verdict the tribunal has seen a significant feature of evidence with regard to slave labor in the fact that the internees were not paid for their work. This was not known to Dr. Volk either. This knowledge has not been asserted in the verdict." |
| Since the nonpayment of concentration camp inmates was a fact established in the general opinion, it was not necessary to mention it specifically in Volk's judgment. Since it was proved in this case that the defendant participated in the exploitation of concentration camp labor, that finding necessarily included the finding that he knew the inmates were not paid, for this constituted an integral part of the charge of slave labor. |
