 |
[particu…] larly in his capacities as Betriebsfuehrer of Leuna
and Hauptbetriebsfuehrer of IG, referring to the provisions of the law and
actual practice, within the framework of evidence to be presented by me. This
will prove that Schneider, within the limits of these responsibilities, in all
matters with which he had to deal or which otherwise came to his attention, did
everything possible and even more to fulfil his legal and human duties in
conformity with the law. It ensues from these facts that he should not be
charged under count three of the indictment.
I probably shall not deal
personally with count five of the indictment, but will refer to the statements
of my defense colleagues; however, I do intend to present evidence to prove
that the defendant Schneider was not a member of the SS, i.e., a criminal
organization within the meaning of the judgment of the International Military
Tribunal.
The career of the defendant Schneider was determined not only
by his professional achievements, but primarily by his character, particularly
by his strong sense of justice and responsibility. It is my conviction that the
same qualities must, and will, influence the outcome of this trial in
accordance with the arguments presented by the defense.
With permission
of the Tribunal I should like to state briefly the following in connection with
the trial brief of the prosecution, part two. The trial brief shows how little
a businessman, or even the ordinary jurist, can foresee the conclusion which
unfortunately is drawn, even by official quarters, from the frequently vague
principles of international law. According to this brief, the relationship of
Germany to Austria and the Sudetenland (the population of which,
enthusiastically and according to the majority's will, was annexed to the
German Reich in 1938, with hardly any protest and even with the approval of
foreign countries) falls for the period 1938 to 1945 under the regulations of
the Hague Convention. On the other hand, the attacker is to be denied the
privileges of these regulations. This is a conception which the authors of this
regulation undoubtedly had not thought of, and which portends the end of
international law, because every state usually considers itself as the one
attacked.
This reasoning shows how important it is, in view of the
vagueness of many international legal theories, that the responsibility for
far-reaching political decisions and measures rests only with the political
leaders who are acquainted with the circumstances and the aims of their
respective governments. If, in its judgment, the International Military
Tribunal has been influenced by the changes, it has followed the best
traditions of our science in this matter. |
267 |
. 
