The Mazal Library

©MAZAL LIBRARY

NMT05-T1232

NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNAL
Volume V · Page 1232

[con…] vict Volk of active participation in either of these nefarious enterprises, but it does declare Volk's knowledge of the nature of these transactions, all of which goes to negate Volk's contention throughout the trial that he was entirely innocent of the criminal ventures in which WVHA was constantly engaged.

On 30 July 1948 defense counsel filed a brief in addition to the one which has just been discussed. This additional brief argues the matter of the Court's declaration of 15 August and the Court order of 13 October regarding trial briefs. One of the reasons why the Tribunal reconvened was to give defense counsel an opportunity to file reply briefs to the prosecution briefs. Defense counsel has pointed out that the prosecution trial brief declared that the task of coordinating and directing W industries at the top level was the task of staff W and that the judgment came to the same conclusion. The similarity of language between the prosecution brief and the judgment in this respect is of no consequence so far as guilt is concerned as the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is based on the evidence in the case, and which fact defense counsel does not deny. This statement was taken by the Tribunal not from the prosecution brief but from one of the documents in the case.

"According to this identity in the field of production, the single economic enterprises maintained by the SS are united in the offices W I-VIII. At head of these offices stands the W staff of the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl regarded from the point of view of private economies the Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe G.m.b.H." (Doc. NO-1016, II/108.) [All italics supplied.]

With regard to the judgment's conclusion that the defendant, because of his numerous positions, at times was not aware himself in which capacity he was functioning at the particular time, reference is made to his own statement on the witness stand:

"Q. Then, were you handling this matter as the personal referent of Pohl or as legal expert in Amtsgruppe W?

"A. Well, that's difficult to say that. You could say in both capacities, actually. Mr. Prosecutor you know I would like to tell you in advance that even my secretary did not always make a difference between the two. She wrote letters, sometimes under staff W and sometimes under personal Referent and, if I didn't pay good attention, then the letters were sent out under the wrong heading. I really could not judge the matter so severely and differentiate between the two." (Tr. p. 5185)

The defendant was not in any way prejudiced by the misunderstanding which brought about the confusion in the matter of filing briefs because the judgment was founded on the record and not

1232