. NMT05-T0921
Volume V · Page 921
| law, the value of which for this
reason could be doubted, but by old established international law.
Therefore it is also applicable in this case. 3. The application in each individual case must be based on the generally known legal rules of the doctrine (Dolus). The position which the defendant Oswald Pohl held in the German state carried with it, of course, the duty to intervene if he received information that crimes were being committed within his sphere of responsibility. If, however, such information did not reach him, he cannot have acted intentionally and as a consequence criminally. On the other hand he cannot be made responsible for every thing which happened as a result of the order he gave, as if this had been intentionally planned by him; here again it is possible that the defendant, when issuing the order, had not consider the evil consequences it might have, and if this were so, it impossible to speak of intent. A similar argument applies to the appointment of executives which the defendant made. In this case, too, he can only be called guilty, if, when choosing these executive officers, head of office groups, heads of offices, nomination of camp commandants, etc., he had neglected to take the necessary care which could be expected of him. For such a supposition actual evidence has been produced by the hearing of the evidence On the contrary, it revealed the fact that immediately after the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps was combined with the Administrative and Economic Main Office, he proposed to the Reich Leader SS the exchange and the replacement of camp commandants in quite a number of cases. Furthermore the hearing of the evidence did not produce any proof that the defendant Oswald Pohl neglected his obligations of supervision within his sphere, i.e., to the extent it could be expected of him. In order to arrive at a correct judgment of the attitude of the defendant, the fact must not be overlooked that he held a difficult office during a war, in which the vital foundations of his people were at stake. |
| C. Closing Statement for Defendant Scheide * |
| DR. HOFFMANN (counsel for the defendant Scheide) : May please your Honors, after my colleague, Herr Dr. Haensel, finished his declarations, I would not like to lead you at the present moment to the very dry field of trucks and motor vehicles which my client dealt with, but I believe that you have heard and that you know sufficiently about my client's activities while he testified as |
* Tr. pp. 7925-7937, 19 September 1947.
