. NMT05-T1115
Volume VI · Page 1115
| on the occasion of the funeral of Reich President von Hindenburg he
was appointed honorary escort to the family. This was purely a function of
representation, for which he was appointed to the staff of the Reich Leader SS.
He was discharged from this post on 1 April 1936 and was appointed merely
leader attached to the staff, i.e., he was merely formally carried on the staff
as leader, without performing any function whatever. A person who was only
nominally carried on the staff as leader was an honorary leader. According to
the publication of the Bavarian Special Ministry [Bayerisches
Sonderministerium] honorary leaders are not to be regarded as members of a
criminal organization. This classification is in conformity with the principles
of the IMT judgment. The IMT judgment declares punishable those members of an
organization declared criminal, who either collaborated for criminal purposes
or who became members with knowledge of the fact that the organization pursued
criminal aims. Neither of these things is true in the case of Steinbrinck.
There can be no question of his cooperation with others for criminal purposes.
The prosecution has attempted to prove that the criminal activities of the SS
must have been general knowledge. They did not succeed in proving this. Thus
the defendant Steinbrinck cannot be sentenced under count five of the
indictment. May I also refer to the principles which were arrived at in the
judgment in the case against Pohl, et al., in which an active colonel of the
Waffen SS was acquitted with the explanation that his knowledge of the criminal
activities of the organization could not be proved. If, on the other hand, in
the opening statement the view is taken that the defendant. must prove that he
had no knowledge of the crimes of the SS, then this assertion is in direct
contradiction of the principles arrived at in the afore-mentioned judgment. It
also contradicts the general rules of criminal procedure in all countries,
according to which the guilt of the defendants must be proved. In this trial, which has now run for more than 7 months before this High Tribunal, both the prosecution and the defense have tried to draw a clear picture of the events on which the charges are based. We must now make a decision on the question of whether men who hitherto stood at the head of their country's economy are to be pronounced guilty of violations of international law. The questions significant in international law as to whether private individuals — and all the defendants are in this category — can become guilty of violations of international law, is to be ignored here. Did the defendants, in the execution of government instructions and orders commit a crime under international law? Could they become guilty if they acted in conformity with the laws of their country? It has repeatedly |
