diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/54899-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/54899-0.txt | 53141 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 53141 deletions
diff --git a/old/54899-0.txt b/old/54899-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 99b5779..0000000 --- a/old/54899-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,53141 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Trials of War Criminals before the -Nuernberg Military Tribunals under, by Various - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 - Volume I - -Author: Various - -Release Date: June 13, 2017 [EBook #54899] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS *** - - - - -Produced by Larry Harrison, Cindy Beyer, and the online -Distributed Proofreaders Canada team at -http://www.pgdpcanada.net with images provided by The -Internet Archives-US. - - - - - - - [Cover Illustration] - - - - - TRIALS - OF - WAR CRIMINALS - BEFORE THE - NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS - UNDER - CONTROL COUNCIL LAW No. 10 - - - [Illustration] - - - VOLUME I - - - NUERNBERG - OCTOBER 1946-APRIL 1949 - - For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, - U.S. Government Printing Office - Washington 25, D. C. — Price $2.75 (Buckram) - - - - - PREFACE - -In April 1949, judgment was rendered in the last of the series of 12 -Nuernberg war crimes trials which had begun in October 1946 and were -held pursuant to Allied Control Council Law No. 10. Far from being of -concern solely to lawyers, these trials are of especial interest to -soldiers, historians, students of international affairs, and others. The -defendants in these proceedings, charged with war crimes and other -offenses against international penal law, were prominent figures in -Hitler’s Germany and included such outstanding diplomats and politicians -as the State Secretary of the Foreign Office, von Weizsaecker, and -cabinet ministers von Krosigk and Lammers; military leaders such as -Field Marshals von Leeb, List, and von Kuechler; SS leaders such as -Ohlendorf, Pohl, and Hildebrandt; industrialists such as Flick, Alfried -Krupp, and the directors of I. G. Farben; and leading professional men -such as the famous physician Gerhard Rose, and the jurist and Acting -Minister of Justice, Schlegelberger. - -In view of the weight of the accusations and the far-flung activities of -the defendants, and the extraordinary amount of official contemporaneous -German documents introduced in evidence, the records of these trials -constitute a major source of historical material covering many events of -the fateful years 1933 (and even earlier) to 1945, in Germany and -elsewhere in Europe. - -The Nuernberg trials under Law No. 10 were carried out under the direct -authority of the Allied Control Council, as manifested in that law, -which authorized the establishment of the Tribunals. The judicial -machinery for the trials, including the Military Tribunals and the -Office, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, was prescribed by Military -Government Ordinance No. 7 and was part of the occupation administration -for the American zone, the Office of Military Government (OMGUS). Law -No. 10, Ordinance No. 7, and other basic jurisdictional or -administrative documents are printed in full hereinafter. - -The proceedings in these trials were conducted throughout in the German -and English languages, and were recorded in full by stenographic notes, -and by electrical sound recording of all oral proceedings. The 12 cases -required over 1,200 days of court proceedings and the transcript of -these proceedings exceeds 330,000 pages, exclusive of hundreds of -document books, briefs, etc. Publication of all of this material, -accordingly, was quite unfeasible. This series, however, contains the -indictments, judgments, and other important portions of the record of -the 12 cases, and it is believed that these materials give a fair -picture of the trials, and as full and illuminating a picture as is -possible within the space available. Copies of the entire record of the -trials are available in the Library of Congress, the National Archives, -and elsewhere. - -In some cases, due to time limitations, errors of one sort or another -have crept into the translations which were available to the Tribunal. -In other cases the same document appears in different trials, or even at -different parts of the same trial, with variations in translation. For -the most part these inconsistencies have been allowed to remain and only -such errors as might cause misunderstanding have been corrected. - -Volume I and part of Volume II of this series are dedicated to the first -of the twelve cases, _United States vs. Karl Brandt, et al._ (Case No. -1). This trial has become known as the Medical Case, because 20 of the -23 defendants were doctors, and the charges related principally to -medical experimentation on human beings. The remainder of Volume II is -devoted to the trial of former Field Marshal Erhard Milch, who was also -charged with criminal responsibilities for medical experimentation on -human beings (of which charge he was acquitted), and with responsibility -for the deportation to forced labor of numerous civilians, in violation -of the laws of war (of which charge he was convicted). - - - - - CONTENTS - - -Preface III -Trials of War Criminals before Nuernberg Military Tribunals VII -Declaration on German Atrocities VIII -Executive Order 9547 IX -London Agreement of 8 August 1945 IX -Charter of The International Military Tribunal XI -Control Council Law No. 10 XVI -Executive Order 9679 XX -General Orders Number 301, Hq. USFET, 24 October 1946 XX -Military Government—Germany, United States Zone, Ordinance No. 7 XXI -Military Government—Germany, Ordinance No. 11 XXVI -Officials of the Office of the Secretary General XXVIII - - “_The Medical Case_” - -Introduction 3 -Order Constituting Tribunal I 5 -Members of the Tribunal 6 -Prosecution Counsel 7 -Defense Counsel 7 -I. Indictment 8 -II. Arraignment 18 -III. Statement of the Tribunal on the Order of Trial and Rules of - Procedure, 9 December 1946 24 -IV. Opening Statement of the Prosecution by Brigadier General - Telford Taylor, 9 December 1946 27 -V. Introductory Statement on the Presentation of Evidence Made by - the Prosecution, 10 December 1946 75 -VI. Organization of the German Medical Services 81 -VII. Extracts from Argumentation and Evidence of Prosecution and - Defense 92 - A. Medical Experiments 92 - 1. High-altitude Experiments 92 - 2. Freezing Experiments 198 - 3. Malaria Experiments 278 - 4. Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments 314 - 5. Sulfanilamide Experiments 354 - 6. Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration, and Bone - Transplantation Experiments 391 - 7. Sea-water Experiments 418 - 8. Epidemic Jaundice Experiments 494 - 9. Typhus and Other Vaccine Experiments 508 - 10. Experiments with Poison 631 - 11. Incendiary Bomb Experiments 639 - 12. Phlegmon Experiments 653 - 13. Polygal Experiments 669 - 14. Gas Oedema (Phenol) Experiments 684 - 15. Experiments for Mass Sterilization 694 - B. Jewish Skeleton Collection 738 - C. Project to kill Tubercular Polish Nationals 759 - D. Euthanasia 794 - E. Selections from Photographic Evidence of the Prosecution 897 -VIII. Evidence and Arguments on Important Aspects of the Case 909 - A. Applicability of Control Council Law No. 10, to offenses - against Germans During the War 909 - B. Responsibility of Superiors for Acts of Subordinates 925 - C. Responsibility of Subordinates for Acts Carried Out under - Superior Orders 957 - D. Status of Occupied Poland under International Law 974 - E. Voluntary Participation of Experimental Subjects 980 - (Sec. VIII continued in Vol. II) - - - VOLUME II - -VIII. Evidence and Arguments on Important Aspects of the Case - F. Necessity - G. Subjection to Medical Experimentation as Substitute for Penalties - H. Usefulness of the Experiments - I. Medical Ethics - 1. General - 2. German Medical Profession - 3. Medical Experiments in other Countries -IX. Ruling of the Tribunal on Count One of the Indictment -X. Final Plea for Defendant Karl Brandt by Dr. Servatius -XI. Final Statements of the Defendants, 19 July 1947 -XII. Judgment - Sentences -XIII. Petitions -XIV. Affirmation of Sentences by the Commander of the U. S. Zone of - Occupation -XV. Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writs of Habeas Corpus -Appendix - Table of Comparative Ranks - List of Witnesses in Case I -Index - - - - - TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS - - -Case -No. _United States against_ _Popular Name_ _Volume No._ - 1 Karl Brandt, et al. Medical Case I and II - 2 Erhard Milch Milch Case II - 3 Josef Altstoetter, et al. Justice Case III - 4 Oswald Pohl, et al. Pohl Case V - 5 Friedrich Flick, et al. Flick Case VI - 6 Carl Krauch, et al. I. G. Farben Case VII and VIII - 7 Wilhelm List, et al. Hostage Case XI - 8 Ulrich Greifelt, et al. RuSHA Case IV and V - 9 Otto Ohlendorf, et al. Einsatzgruppen Case IV -10 Alfred Krupp, et al. Krupp Case IX -11 Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al. Ministries Case XII, XIII, and XIV -12 Wilhelm von Leeb, et al. High Command Case X and XI - Procedure XV - - - - - DECLARATION ON GERMAN ATROCITIES - - - [Moscow Declaration] - Released November 1, 1943 - -THE UNITED KINGDOM, the United States and the Soviet Union have received -from many quarters evidence of atrocities, massacres and cold-blooded -mass executions which are being perpetrated by the Hitlerite forces in -the many countries they have overrun and from which they are now being -steadily expelled. The brutalities of Hitlerite domination are no new -thing and all the peoples or territories in their grip have suffered -from the worst form of government by terror. What is new is that many of -these territories are now being redeemed by the advancing armies of the -liberating Powers and that in their desperation, the recoiling Hitlerite -Huns are redoubling their ruthless cruelties. This is now evidenced with -particular clearness by monstrous crimes of the Hitlerites on the -territory of the Soviet Union which is being liberated from the -Hitlerites, and on French and Italian territory. - -Accordingly, the aforesaid three allied Powers, speaking in the -interests of the thirty-two [thirty-three] United Nations, hereby -solemnly declare and give full warning of their declaration as follows: - -At the time of the granting of any armistice to any government which may -be set up in Germany, those German officers and men and members of the -Nazi party who have been responsible for, or have taken a consenting -part in the above atrocities, massacres, and executions, will be sent -back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order -that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these -liberated countries and of the free governments which will be created -therein. Lists will be compiled in all possible detail from all these -countries having regard especially to the invaded parts of the Soviet -Union, to Poland and Czechoslovakia, to Yugoslavia and Greece, including -Crete and other islands, to Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, -Luxemburg, France and Italy. - -Thus, the Germans who take part in wholesale shootings of Italian -officers or in the execution of French, Dutch, Belgian, or Norwegian -hostages or of Cretan peasants, or who have shared in the slaughters -inflicted on the people of Poland or in territories of the Soviet Union -which are now being swept clear of the enemy, will know that they will -be brought back to the scene of their crimes and judged on the spot by -the peoples whom they have outraged. Let those who have hitherto not -imbrued their hands with innocent blood beware lest they join the ranks -of the guilty, for most assuredly the three allied Powers will pursue -them to the uttermost ends of the earth and will deliver them to their -accusers in order that justice may be done. - -The above declaration is without prejudice to the case of the major -criminals, whose offences have no particular geographical localisation -and who will be punished by the joint decision of the Governments of the -Allies. - - [Signed] - Roosevelt - Churchill - Stalin - - - - - EXECUTIVE ORDER 9547 - - -=Providing for Representation of the United States in Preparing and -Prosecuting Charges of Atrocities and War Crimes Against the Leaders of -the European Axis Powers and Their Principal Agents and -Accessories= - -By virtue of the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in -Chief of the Army and Navy, under the Constitution and statutes of the -United States, it is ordered as follows: - -1. Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson is hereby designated to act as -the Representative of the United States and as its Chief of Counsel in -preparing and prosecuting charges of atrocities and war crimes against -such of the leaders of the European Axis powers and their principal -agents and accessories as the United States may agree with any of the -United Nations to bring to trial before an international military -tribunal. He shall serve without additional compensation but shall -receive such allowance for expenses as may be authorized by the -President. - -2. The Representative named herein is authorized to select and recommend -to the President or to the head of any executive department, independent -establishment, or other federal agency necessary personnel to assist in -the performance of his duties hereunder. The head of each executive -department, independent establishment, and other federal agency is -hereby authorized to assist the Representative named herein in the -performance of his duties hereunder and to employ such personnel and -make such expenditures, within the limits of appropriations now or -hereafter available for the purpose, as the Representative named herein -may deem necessary to accomplish the purposes of this order, and may -make available, assign, or detail for duty with the Representative named -herein such members of the armed forces and other personnel as may be -requested for such purposes. - -3. The Representative named herein is authorized to cooperate with, and -receive the assistance of, any foreign Government to the extent deemed -necessary by him to accomplish the purposes of this order. - - HARRY S. TRUMAN - THE WHITE HOUSE, - _May 2, 1945_. -(F. R. Doc. 45-7256; Filed, May 3, 1945; 10:57 a. m.) - - * * * * * - - - - - LONDON AGREEMENT OF 8 AUGUST 1945 - - -AGREEMENT by the Government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the -Provisional Government of the FRENCH REPUBLIC, the Government of the -=United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland= and -the Government of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS for the -Prosecution and Punishment of the MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS of the EUROPEAN -AXIS - -WHEREAS the United Nations have from time to time made declarations of -their intention that War Criminals shall be brought to justice; - -AND WHEREAS the Moscow Declaration of the 30th October 1943 on German -atrocities in Occupied Europe stated that those German Officers and men -and members of the Nazi Party who have been responsible for or have -taken a consenting part in atrocities and crimes will be sent back to -the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that -they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these liberated -countries and of the free Governments that will be created therein; - -AND WHEREAS this Declaration was stated to be without prejudice to the -case of major criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical -location and who will be punished by the Joint decision of the -Governments of the Allies; - -NOW THEREFORE the Government of the United States of America, the -Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the -United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government -of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (hereinafter called “the -Signatories”) acting in the interests of all the United Nations and by -their representatives duly authorized thereto have concluded this -Agreement. - -=Article 1.= There shall be established after consultation with the -Control Council for Germany an International Military Tribunal for the -trial of war criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical -location whether they be accused individually or in their capacity as -members of organizations or groups or in both capacities. - -=Article 2.= The constitution, jurisdiction and functions of the -International Military Tribunal shall be those set out in the Charter -annexed to this Agreement, which Charter shall form an integral part of -this Agreement. - -=Article 3.= Each of the Signatories shall take the necessary steps to -make available for the investigation of the charges and trial the major -war criminals detained by them who are to be tried by the International -Military Tribunal. The Signatories shall also use their best endeavors -to make available for investigation of the charges against and the trial -before the International Military Tribunal such of the major war -criminals as are not in the territories of any of the Signatories. - -=Article 4.= Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the provisions -established by the Moscow Declaration concerning the return of war -criminals to the countries where they committed their crimes. - -=Article 5.= Any Government of the United Nations may adhere to this -Agreement by notice given through the diplomatic channel to the -Government of the United Kingdom, who shall inform the other signatory -and adhering Governments of each such adherence. - -=Article 6.= Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the jurisdiction -or the powers of any national or occupation court established or to be -established in any allied territory or in Germany for the trial of war -criminals. - -=Article 7.= This agreement shall come into force on the day of -signature and shall remain in force for the period of one year and shall -continue thereafter, subject to the right of any Signatory to give, -through the diplomatic channel, one month’s notice of intention to -terminate it. Such termination shall not prejudice any proceedings -already taken or any findings already made in pursuance of this -Agreement. - -IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Undersigned have signed the present Agreement. - -DONE in quadruplicate in London this 8^{th} day of August 1945 each in -English, French and Russian, and each text to have equal authenticity. - - For the Government of the United States of America - - ROBERT H. JACKSON - - For the Provisional Government of the French Republic - - ROBERT FALCO - - For the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and - Northern Ireland - - JOWITT, C. - - For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - - I. NIKITCHENKO - A. TRAININ - - - - - CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL - - - I. CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL - -=Article 1.= In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of -August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the -Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the -United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government -of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established -an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”) -for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals -of the European Axis. - -=Article 2.= The Tribunal shall consist of four members, each with an -alternate. One member and one alternate shall be appointed by each of -the Signatories. The alternates shall, so far as they are able, be -present at all sessions of the Tribunal. In case of illness of any -member of the Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason to -fulfill his functions, his alternate shall take his place. - -=Article 3.= Neither the Tribunal, its members nor their alternates can -be challenged by the prosecution, or by the Defendants or their Counsel. -Each Signatory may replace its member of the Tribunal or his alternate -for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no -replacement may take place during a Trial, other than by an alternate. - -=Article 4.= - -(_a_) The presence of all four members of the Tribunal or the alternate -for any absent member shall be necessary to constitute the quorum. - -(_b_) The members of the Tribunal shall, before any trial begins, agree -among themselves upon the selection from their number of a President, -and the President shall hold office during that trial, or as may -otherwise be agreed by a vote of not less than three members. The -principle of rotation of presidency for successive trials is agreed. If, -however, a session of the Tribunal takes place on the territory of one -of the four Signatories, the representative of that Signatory on the -Tribunal shall preside. - -(_c_) Save as aforesaid the Tribunal shall take decisions by a majority -vote and in case the votes are evenly divided, the vote of the President -shall be decisive: provided always that convictions and sentences shall -only be imposed by affirmative votes of at least three members of the -Tribunal. - -=Article 5.= In case of need and depending on the number of the matters -to be tried, other Tribunals may be set up; and the establishment, -functions, and procedure of each Tribunal shall be identical, and shall -be governed by this Charter. - - II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES - -=Article 6.= The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in -Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals -of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish -persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, -whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of -the following crimes. - -The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the -jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual -responsibility: - -(_a_) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or -waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of International -treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or -conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; - -(_b_) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such -violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment -or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian -population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of -prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of -public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or -villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; - -(_c_) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, -enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any -civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on -political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection -with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not -in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.[1] - -Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the -formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of -the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any -persons in execution of such plan. - -=Article 7.= The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of -State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be -considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment. - -=Article 8.= The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his -Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but -may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines -that justice so requires. - -=Article 9.= At the trial of any individual member of any group or -organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of -which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of -which the individual was a member was a criminal organization. - -After receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give such notice as -it thinks fit that the prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to make -such declaration and any member of the organization will be entitled to -apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal upon the -question of the criminal character of the organization. The Tribunal -shall have power to allow or reject the application. If the application -is allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicants shall -be represented and heard. - -=Article 10.= In cases where a group or organization is declared -criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any -Signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for -membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In -any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is -considered proved and shall not be questioned. - -=Article 11.= Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before -a national, military or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of -this Charter, with a crime other than of membership in a criminal group -or organization and such court may, after convicting him, impose upon -him punishment independent of and additional to the punishment imposed -by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal activities of such -group or organization. - -=Article 12.= The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings -against a person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this -Charter in his absence, if he has not been found or if the Tribunal, for -any reason, finds it necessary, in the interests of justice, to conduct -the hearing in his absence. - -=Article 13.= The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These -rules shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter. - - III. COMMITTEE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF - MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS - -=Article 14.= Each Signatory shall appoint a Chief Prosecutor for the -investigation of the charges against and the prosecution of major war -criminals. - -The Chief Prosecutors shall act as a committee for the following -purposes: - -(_a_) to agree upon a plan of the individual work of each of the Chief -Prosecutors and his staff, - -(_b_) to settle the final designation of major war criminals to be tried -by the Tribunal, - -(_c_) to improve the Indictment and the documents to be submitted -therewith, - -(_d_) to lodge the Indictment and the accompanying documents with the -Tribunal, - -(_e_) to draw up and recommend to the Tribunal for its approval draft -rules of procedure, contemplated by Article 13 of this Charter. The -Tribunal shall have power to accept, with or without amendments, or to -reject, the rules so recommended. - -The Committee shall act in all the above matters by a majority vote and -shall appoint a Chairman as may be convenient and in accordance with the -principle of rotation: provided that if there is an equal division of -vote concerning the designation of a Defendant to be tried by the -Tribunal, or the crimes with which he shall be charged, that proposal -will be adopted which was made by the party which proposed that the -particular Defendant be tried, or the particular charges be preferred -against him. - -=Article 15.= The Chief Prosecutors shall individually, and acting in -collaboration with one another, also undertake the following duties: - -(_a_) investigation, collection, and production before or at the Trial -of all necessary evidence, - -(_b_) the preparation of the Indictment for approval by the Committee in -accordance with paragraph (_c_) of Article 14 hereof, - -(_c_) the preliminary examination of all necessary witnesses and of the -Defendants, - -(_d_) to act as prosecutor at the Trial, - -(_e_) to appoint representatives to carry out such duties as may be -assigned to them, - -(_f_) to undertake such other matters as may appear necessary to them -for the purposes of the preparation for and conduct of the Trial. - -It is understood that no witness or Defendant detained by any Signatory -shall be taken out of the possession of that Signatory without its -assent. - - IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS - -=Article 16.= In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the -following procedure shall be followed: - -(_a_) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail -the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all -the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language -which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at a -reasonable time before the Trial. - -(_b_) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he -shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges -made against him. - -(_c_) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be -conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant -understands. - -(_d_) A defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before -the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel. - -(_e_) A defendant shall have the right through himself or through his -Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and -to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution. - - V. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL - -=Article 17.= The Tribunal shall have the power - -(_a_) to summon witnesses to the Trial and to require their attendance -and testimony and to put questions to them, - -(_b_) to interrogate any Defendant, - -(_c_) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary -material, - -(_d_) to administer oaths to witnesses, - -(_e_) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designated by -the Tribunal including the power to have evidence taken on commission. - -=Article 18.= The Tribunal shall - -(_a_) confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the issues -raised by the charges, - -(_b_) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause -unreasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any -kind whatsoever, - -(_c_) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate -punishment, including exclusion of any Defendant or his Counsel from -some or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the -determination of the charges. - -=Article 19.= The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of -evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent -expeditious and non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence -which it deems to have probative value. - -=Article 20.= The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of -any evidence before it is offered so that it may rule upon the relevance -thereof. - -=Article 21.= The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common -knowledge but shall take Judicial notice thereof. It shall also take -judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the -United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set -up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, -and the records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of -the United Nations. - -=Article 22.= The permanent seat of the Tribunal shall be in Berlin. The -first meetings of the members of the Tribunal and of the Chief -Prosecutors shall be held at Berlin in a place to be designated by the -Control Council for Germany. The first trial shall be held at Nuremberg, -and any subsequent trials shall be held at such places as the Tribunal -may decide. - -=Article 23.= One or more of the Chief Prosecutors may take part in the -prosecution at each Trial. The function of any Chief Prosecutor may be -discharged by him personally, or by any person or persons authorized by -him. - -The function of Counsel for a Defendant may be discharged at the -Defendant’s request by any Counsel professionally qualified to conduct -cases before the Courts of his own country, or by any other person who -may be specially authorized thereto by the Tribunal. - -=Article 24.= The proceedings at the Trial shall take the following -course: - -(_a_) The Indictment shall be read in court. - -(_b_) The Tribunal shall ask each Defendant whether he pleads “guilty” -or “not guilty”. - -(_c_) The Prosecution shall make an opening statement. - -(_d_) The Tribunal shall ask the Prosecution and the Defense what -evidence (if any) they wish to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal -shall rule upon the admissibility of any such evidence. - -(_e_) The witnesses for the Prosecution shall be examined and after that -the witnesses for the Defense. Thereafter such rebutting evidence as may -be held by the Tribunal to be admissible shall be called by either the -Prosecution or the Defense. - -(_f_) The Tribunal may put any question to any witness and to any -Defendant, at any time. - -(_g_) The Prosecution and the Defense shall interrogate and may -cross-examine any witnesses and any Defendant who gives testimony. - -(_h_) The Defense shall address the court. - -(_i_) The Prosecution shall address the court. - -(_j_) Each Defendant may make a statement to the Tribunal. - -(_k_) The Tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence. - -=Article 25.= All official documents shall be produced, and all court -proceedings conducted, in English, French and Russian, and in the -language of the Defendant. So much of the record and of the proceedings -may also be translated into the language of any country in which the -Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal considers desirable in the -interests of justice and public opinion. - - VI. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE - -=Article 26.= The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the -innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, -and shall be final and not subject to review. - -=Article 27.= The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a -Defendant, on conviction, death or such other punishment as shall be -determined by it to be just. - -=Article 28.= In addition to any punishment imposed by it, the Tribunal -shall have the right to deprive the convicted person of any stolen -property and order its delivery to the Control Council for Germany. - -=Article 29.= In case of guilt, sentences shall be carried out in -accordance with the orders of the Control Council for Germany, which may -at any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentences, but may not -increase the severity thereof. If the Control Council for Germany, after -any Defendant has been convicted and sentenced, discovers fresh evidence -which, in its opinion, would found a fresh charge against him, the -Council shall report accordingly to the Committee established under -Article 14 hereof, for such action as they may consider proper, having -regard to the interests of justice. - - VII. EXPENSES - -=Article 30.= The expenses of the Tribunal and of the Trials, shall be -charged by the Signatories against the funds allotted for maintenance of -the Control Council for Germany. - - * * * * * - - _PROTOCOL_ - -Whereas an Agreement and Charter regarding the Prosecution of War -Criminals was signed in London on the 8th August 1945, in the English, -French, and Russian languages. - -And whereas a discrepancy has been found to exist between the originals -of Article 6, paragraph (_c_), of the Charter in the Russian language, -on the one hand, and the originals in the English and French languages, -on the other, to wit, the semi-colon in Article 6, paragraph (_c_), of -the Charter between the words “war” and “or”, as carried in the English -and French texts, is a comma in the Russian text. - -and whereas it is desired to rectify this discrepancy: - -NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, signatories of the said Agreement on -behalf of their respective Governments, duly authorized thereto, have -agreed that Article 6, paragraph (_c_), of the Charter in the Russian -text is correct, and that the meaning and intention of the Agreement and -Charter require that the said semi-colon in the English text should be -changed to a comma, and that the French text should be amended to read -as follows: - -(_c_) LES CRIMES CONTRE L’HUMANITE: c’est à dire l’assassinat, -l’extermination, la réduction en esclavage, la déportation, et tout -autre acte inhumain commis contre toutes populations civiles, avant ou -pendant la guerre, ou bien les persécutions pour des motifs politiques, -raciaux, ou réligieux, lorsque ces actes ou persécutions, qu’ils aient -constitué ou non une violation du droit interne du pays où ils ont été -perpétrés, ont été commis à la suite de tout crime rentrant dans la -compétence du Tribunal, ou en liaison avec ce crime. - -IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Undersigned have signed the present Protocol. - -DONE in quadruplicate in Berlin this 6th day of October, 1945, each in -English, French, and Russian, and each text to have equal authenticity. - - For the Government of the United States of America - - ROBERT H. JACKSON - - For the Provisional Government of the French Republic - - FRANÇOIS DE MENTHON - - For the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and - Northern Ireland - - HARTLEY SHAWCROSS - - For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - - R. RUDENKO - ------ - -[1] See proctocol p. XV for correction of this paragraph. - - * * * * * - - - - - CONTROL COUNCIL LAW NO. 10 - - - _PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST PEACE AND - AGAINST HUMANITY_ - -In order to give effect to the terms of the Moscow Declaration of 30 -October 1943 and the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, and the Charter -issued pursuant thereto and in order to establish a uniform legal basis -in Germany for the prosecution of war criminals and other similar -offenders, other than those dealt with by the International Military -Tribunal, the Control Council enacts as follows: - - Article I - -The Moscow Declaration of 30 October 1943 “Concerning Responsibility of -Hitlerites for Committed Atrocities” and the London Agreement of 8 -August 1945 “Concerning Prosecution and Punishment of Major War -Criminals of the European Axis” are made integral parts of this Law. -Adherence to the provisions of the London Agreement by any of the United -Nations, as provided for in Article V of that Agreement, shall not -entitle such Nation to participate or interfere in the operation of this -Law within the Control Council area of authority in Germany. - - Article II - -1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime: - -(_a_) _Crimes against Peace._ Initiation of invasions of other countries -and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties, -including but not limited to planning, preparation, initiation or waging -a war of aggression, or a war of violation of international treaties, -agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or -conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing. - -(_b_) _War Crimes._ Atrocities or offences against persons or property -constituting violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not -limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for -any other purpose, of civilian population from occupied territory, -murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, -killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton -destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified -by military necessity. - -(_c_) _Crimes against Humanity._ Atrocities and offences, including but -not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, -imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against -any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or -religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of -the country where perpetrated. - -(_d_) Membership in categories of a criminal group or organization -declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal. - -2. Any person without regard to nationality or the capacity in which he -acted, is deemed to have committed a crime as defined in paragraph 1 of -this Article, if he was (_a_) a principal or (_b_) was an accessory to -the commission of any such crime or ordered or abetted the same or (_c_) -took a consenting part therein or (_d_) was connected with plans or -enterprises involving its commission or (_e_) was a member of any -organization or group connected with the commission of any such crime or -(_f_) with reference to paragraph 1 (_a_), if he held a high political, -civil or military (including General Staff) position in Germany or in -one of its Allies, co-belligerents or satellites or held high position -in the financial, industrial or economic life of any such country. - -3. Any person found guilty of any of the Crimes above mentioned may upon -conviction be punished as shall be determined by the tribunal to be -just. Such punishment may consist of one or more of the following: - -(_a_) Death. - -(_b_) Imprisonment for life or a term of years, with or without hard -labour. - -(_c_) Fine, and imprisonment with or without hard labour, in lieu, -thereof. - -(_d_) Forfeiture of property. - -(_e_) Restitution of property wrongfully acquired. - -(_f_) Deprivation of some or all civil rights. - -Any property declared to be forfeited or the restitution of which is -ordered by the Tribunal shall be delivered to the Control Council for -Germany, which shall decide on its disposal. - -4. (_a_) The official position of any person, whether as Head of State -or as a responsible official in a Government Department, does not free -him from responsibility for a crime or entitle him to mitigation of -punishment. - -(_b_) The fact that any person acted pursuant to the order of his -Government or of a superior does not free him from responsibility for a -crime, but may be considered in mitigation. - -5. In any trial or prosecution for a crime herein referred to, the -accused shall not be entitled to the benefits of any statute of -limitation in respect of the period from 30 January 1933 to 1 July 1945, -nor shall any immunity, pardon or amnesty granted under the Nazi regime -be admitted as a bar to trial or punishment. - - Article III - -1. Each occupying authority, within its Zone of occupation, - -(_a_) shall have the right to cause persons within such Zone suspected -of having committed a crime, including those charged with crime by one -of the United Nations, to be arrested and shall take under control the -property, real and personal, owned or controlled by the said persons, -pending decisions as to its eventual disposition. - -(_b_) shall report to the Legal Directorate the names of all suspected -criminals, the reasons for and the places of their detention, if they -are detained, and the names and location of witnesses. - -(_c_) shall take appropriate measures to see that witnesses and evidence -will be available when required. - -(_d_) shall have the right to cause all persons so arrested and charged, -and not delivered to another authority as herein provided, or released, -to be brought to trial before an appropriate tribunal. Such tribunal -may, in the case of crimes committed by persons of German citizenship or -nationality against other persons of German citizenship or nationality, -or stateless persons, be a German Court, if authorized by the occupying -authorities. - -2. The tribunal by which persons charged with offenses hereunder shall -be tried and the rules and procedure thereof shall be determined or -designated by each Zone Commander for his respective Zone. Nothing -herein is intended to, or shall impair or limit the jurisdiction or -power of any court or tribunal now or hereafter established in any Zone -by the Commander thereof, or of the International Military Tribunal -established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945. - -3. Persons wanted for trial by an International Military Tribunal will -not be tried without the consent of the Committee of Chief Prosecutors. -Each Zone Commander will deliver such persons who are within his Zone to -that committee upon request and will make witnesses and evidence -available to it. - -4. Persons known to be wanted for trial in another Zone or outside -Germany will not be tried prior to decision under Article IV unless the -fact of their apprehension has been reported in accordance with Section -1 (_b_) of this Article, three months have elapsed thereafter, and no -request for delivery of the type contemplated by Article IV has been -received by the Zone Commander concerned. - -5. The execution of death sentences may be deferred by not to exceed one -month after the sentence has become final when the Zone Commander -concerned has reason to believe that the testimony of those under -sentence would be of value in the investigation and trial of crimes -within or without his Zone. - -6. Each Zone Commander will cause such effect to be given to the -judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction, with respect to the -property taken under his control pursuant hereto, as he may deem proper -in the interest of justice. - - Article IV - -1. When any person in a Zone in Germany is alleged to have committed a -crime, as defined in Article II, in a country other than Germany or in -another Zone, the government of that nation or the Commander of the -latter Zone, as the case may be, may request the Commander of the Zone -in which the person is located for his arrest and delivery for trial to -the country or Zone in which the crime was committed. Such request for -delivery shall be granted by the Commander receiving it unless he -believes such person is wanted for trial or as a witness by an -International Military Tribunal, or in Germany, or in a nation other -than the one making the request, or the Commander is not satisfied that -delivery should be made, in any of which cases he shall have the right -to forward the said request to the Legal Directorate of the Allied -Control Authority. A similar procedure shall apply to witnesses, -material exhibits and other forms of evidence. - -2. The Legal Directorate shall consider all requests referred to it, and -shall determine the same in accordance with the following principles, -its determination to be communicated to the Zone Commander. - -(_a_) A person wanted for trial or as a witness by an International -Military Tribunal shall not be delivered for trial or required to give -evidence outside Germany, as the case may be, except upon approval of -the Committee of Chief Prosecutors acting under the London Agreement of -8 August 1945. - -(_b_) A person wanted for trial by several authorities (other than an -International Military Tribunal) shall be disposed of in accordance with -the following priorities: - -(1) If wanted for trial in the Zone in which he is, he should not be -delivered unless arrangements are made for his return after trial -elsewhere; - -(2) If wanted for trial in a Zone other than that in which he is, he -should be delivered to that Zone in preference to delivery outside -Germany unless arrangements are made for his return to that Zone after -trial elsewhere; - -(3) If wanted for trial outside Germany by two or more of the United -Nations, of one of which he is a citizen, that one should have priority; - -(4) If wanted for trial outside Germany by several countries, not all of -which are United Nations, United Nations should have priority; - -(5) If wanted for trial outside Germany by two or more of the United -Nations, then, subject to Article IV 2 (_b_) (3) above, that which has -the most serious charges against him, which are moreover supported by -evidence, should have priority. - - Article V - -The delivery, under Article IV of this Law, of persons for trial shall -be made on demands of the Governments or Zone Commanders in such a -manner that the delivery of criminals to one jurisdiction will not -become the means of defeating or unnecessarily delaying the carrying out -of justice in another place. If within six months the delivered person -has not been convicted by the Court of the zone or country to which he -has been delivered, then such person shall be returned upon demand of -the Commander of the Zone where the person was located prior to -delivery. - -Done at Berlin, 20 December 1945. - - JOSEPH T. MCNARNEY - General - B. L. MONTGOMERY - Field Marshal - L. KOELTZ - General de Corps d’Armée - for P. KOENIG - General d’Armée - G. ZHUKOV - Marshal of the Soviet Union - - - - - EXECUTIVE ORDER 9679 - - -=Amendment of Executive Order No. 9547 of May 2, 1945, Entitled -“Providing for Representation of the United States in Preparing and -Prosecuting Charges of Atrocities and War Crimes Against the Leaders of -the European Axis Powers and Their Principal Agents and -Accessories”= - -By virtue of the authority vested in me as President and Commander in -Chief of the Army and Navy, under the Constitution and statutes of the -United States, it is ordered as follows: - -1. In addition to the authority vested in the Representative of the -United States and its Chief of Counsel by Paragraph 1 of Executive Order -No. 9547 of May 2, 1945, to prepare and prosecute charges of atrocities -and war crimes against such of the leaders of the European Axis powers -and their accessories as the United States may agree with any of the -United Nations to bring to trial before an international military -tribunal, such Representative and Chief of Counsel shall have the -authority to proceed before United States military or occupation -tribunals, in proper cases, against other Axis adherents, including but -not limited to cases against members of groups and organizations -declared criminal by the said international military tribunal. - -2. The present Representative and Chief of Counsel is authorized to -designate a Deputy Chief of Counsel, to whom he may assign -responsibility for organizing and planning the prosecution of charges of -atrocities and war crimes, other than those now being prosecuted as Case -No. 1 in the international military tribunal, and, as he may be directed -by the Chief of Counsel, for conducting the prosecution of such charges -of atrocities and war crimes. - -3. Upon vacation of office by the present Representative and Chief of -Counsel, the functions, duties, and powers of the Representative of the -United States and its Chief of Counsel, as specified in the said -Executive Order No. 9547 of May 2, 1945, as amended by this order, shall -be vested in a Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to be appointed by the -United States Military Governor for Germany or by his successor. - -4. The said Executive Order No. 9547 of May 2, 1945, is amended -accordingly. - - HARRY S. TRUMAN - -THE WHITE HOUSE, - - _January 16, 1946_. -(F. R. Doc. 46-893; Filed, Jan. 17, 1946; 11:08 a. m.) - - * * * * * - - - - - HEADQUARTERS - - - US FORCES, EUROPEAN THEATER - -GENERAL ORDERS } 24 OCTOBER 1946 -No. 301 } - -Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes I -Chief Prosecutor II -Announcement of Assignments III - -_I_——_OFFICE OF CHIEF OF COUNSEL FOR WAR CRIMES._ Effective this date, -the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes is transferred to the -Office of Military Government for Germany (US). The Chief of Counsel for -War Crimes will report directly to the Deputy Military Governor and will -work in close liaison with the Legal Adviser of the Office of Military -Government for Germany and with the Theater Judge Advocate. - -_II_——_CHIEF PROSECUTOR._ Effective this date, the Chief of Counsel -for War Crimes will also serve as Chief Prosecutor under the Charter of -the International Military Tribunal, established by the Agreement of 8 -August 1945. - -_III_——_ANNOUNCEMENT OF ASSIGNMENTS._ Effective this date, Brigadier -General Telford Taylor, USA, is announced as Chief of Counsel for War -Crimes, in which capacity he will also serve as Chief Prosecutor for the -United States under the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, -established by the Agreement of 8 August 1945. - - BY COMMAND OF GENERAL MCNARNEY: - - C. R. HUEBNER - _Major General, GSC,_ - _Chief of Staff_ - - OFFICIAL: - GEORGE F. HERBERT - _Colonel_, AGD - _Adjutant General_ - -DISTRIBUTION: D - - * * * * * - - - - - MILITARY GOVERNMENT—GERMANY - UNITED STATES ZONE - ORDINANCE NO. 7 - - - _ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF CERTAIN MILITARY TRIBUNALS_ - - Article I - -The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide for the establishment of -military tribunals which shall have power to try and punish persons -charged with offenses recognized as crimes in Article II of Control -Council Law No. 10, including conspiracies to commit any such crimes. -Nothing herein shall prejudice the jurisdiction or the powers of other -courts established or which may be established for the trial of any such -offenses. - - Article II - -(_a_) Pursuant to the powers of the Military Governor for the United -States Zone of Occupation within Germany and further pursuant to the -powers conferred upon the Zone Commander by Control Council Law No. 10 -and Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter of the International Military -Tribunal annexed to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 certain -tribunals to be known as “Military Tribunals” shall be established -hereunder. - -(_b_) Each such tribunal shall consist of three or more members to be -designated by the Military Governor. One alternate member may be -designated to any tribunal if deemed advisable by the Military Governor. -Except as provided in subsection (_c_) of this Article, all members and -alternates shall be lawyers who have been admitted to practice, for at -least five years, in the highest courts of one of the United States or -its territories or of the District of Columbia, or who have been -admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court. - -(_c_) The Military Governor may in his discretion enter into an -agreement with one or more other zone commanders of the member nations -of the Allied Control Authority providing for the joint trial of any -case or cases. In such cases the tribunals shall consist of three or -more members as may be provided in the agreement. In such cases the -tribunals may include properly qualified lawyers designated by the other -member nations. - -(_d_) The Military Governor shall designate one of the members of the -tribunal to serve as the presiding judge. - -(_e_) Neither the tribunals nor the members of the tribunals or the -alternates may be challenged by the prosecution or by the defendants or -their counsel. - -(_f_) In case of illness of any member of a tribunal or his incapacity -for some other reason, the alternate, if one has been designated, shall -take his place as a member in the pending trial. Members may be replaced -for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no -replacement of a member may take place, during a trial, other than by -the alternate. If no alternate has been designated, the trial shall be -continued to conclusion by the remaining members. - -(_g_) The presence of three members of the tribunal or of two members -when authorized pursuant to subsection (_f_) _supra_ shall be necessary -to constitute a quorum. In the case of tribunals designated under (_c_) -above the agreement shall determine the requirements for a quorum. - -(_h_) Decisions and judgments, including convictions and sentences, -shall be by majority vote of the members. If the votes of the members -are equally divided, the presiding member shall declare a mistrial. - - Article III - -(_a_) Charges against persons to be tried in the tribunals established -hereunder shall originate in the Office of the Chief of Counsel for War -Crimes, appointed by the Military Governor pursuant to paragraph 3 of -the Executive Order Numbered 9679 of the President of the United States -dated 16 January 1946. The Chief of Counsel for War Crimes shall -determine the persons to be tried by the tribunals and he or his -designated representative shall file the indictments with the Secretary -General of the tribunals (see Article XIV, _infra_) and shall conduct -the prosecution. - -(_b_) The Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, when in his judgment it is -advisable, may invite one or more United Nations to designate -representatives to participate in the prosecution of any case. - - Article IV - -In order to ensure fair trial for the defendants, the following -procedure shall be followed: - -(_a_) A defendant shall be furnished, at a reasonable time before his -trial, a copy of the indictment and of all documents lodged with the -indictment, translated into a language which he understands. The -indictment shall state the charges plainly, concisely and with -sufficient particulars to inform defendant of the offenses charged. - -(_b_) The trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language -which the defendant understands. - -(_c_) A defendant shall have the right to be represented by counsel of -his own selection, provided such counsel shall be a person qualified -under existing regulations to conduct cases before the courts of -defendant’s country, or any other person who may be specially authorized -by the tribunal. The tribunal shall appoint qualified counsel to -represent a defendant who is not represented by counsel of his own -selection. - -(_d_) Every defendant shall be entitled to be present at his trial -except that a defendant may be proceeded against during temporary -absences if in the opinion of the tribunal defendant’s interests will -not thereby be impaired, and except further as provided in Article VI -(_c_). The tribunal may also proceed in the absence of any defendant who -has applied for and has been granted permission to be absent. - -(_e_) A defendant shall have the right through his counsel to present -evidence at the trial in support of his defense, and to cross examine -any witness called by the prosecution. - -(_f_) A defendant may apply in writing to the tribunal for the -production of witnesses or of documents. The application shall state -where the witness or document is thought to be located and shall also -state the facts to be proved by the witness or the document and the -relevancy of such facts to the defense. If the tribunal grants the -application, the defendant shall be given such aid in obtaining -production of evidence as the tribunal may order. - - Article V - -The tribunals shall have the power - -(_a_) to summon witnesses to the trial, to require their attendance and -testimony and to put questions to them; - -(_b_) to interrogate any defendant who takes the stand to testify in his -own behalf, or who is called to testify regarding another defendant; - -(_c_) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary -material; - -(_d_) to administer oaths; - -(_e_) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designated by -the tribunals including the taking of evidence on commission; - -(_f_) to adopt rules of procedure not inconsistent with this Ordinance. -Such rules shall be adopted, and from time to time as necessary, revised -by the members of the tribunal or by the committee of presiding judges -as provided in Article XIII. - - Article VI - -The tribunals shall - -(_a_) confine the trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the issues -raised by the charges; - -(_b_) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause -unreasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any -kind whatsoever; - -(_c_) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate -punishment, including the exclusion of any defendant or his counsel from -some or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the -determination of the charges. - - Article VII - -The tribunals shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. They -shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and -non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which they deem to -have probative value. Without limiting the foregoing general rules, the -following shall be deemed admissible if they appear to the tribunal to -contain information of probative value relating to the charges: -affidavits, depositions, interrogations, and other statements, diaries, -letters, the records, findings, statements and judgments of the military -tribunals and the reviewing and confirming authorities of any of the -United Nations, and copies of any document or other secondary evidence -of the contents of any document, if the original is not readily -available or cannot be produced without delay. The tribunal shall afford -the opposing party such opportunity to question the authenticity or -probative value of such evidence as in the opinion of the tribunal the -ends of justice require. - - Article VIII - -The tribunals may require that they be informed of the nature of any -evidence before it is offered so that they may rule upon the relevance -thereof. - - Article IX - -The tribunals shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but -shall take judicial notice thereof. They shall also take judicial notice -of official governmental documents and reports of any of the United -Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in -the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and -the records and findings of military or other tribunals of any of the -United Nations. - - Article X - -The determinations of the International Military Tribunal in the -judgments in Case No. 1 that invasions, aggressive acts, aggressive -wars, crimes, atrocities or inhumane acts were planned or occurred, -shall be binding on the tribunals established hereunder and shall not be -questioned except insofar as the participation therein or knowledge -thereof by any particular person may be concerned. Statements of the -International Military Tribunal in the judgment in Case No. 1 constitute -proof of the facts stated, in the absence of substantial new evidence to -the contrary. - - Article XI - -The proceedings at the trial shall take the following course: - -(_a_) The tribunal shall inquire of each defendant whether he has -received and had an opportunity to read the indictment against him and -whether he pleads “guilty” or “not guilty.” - -(_b_) The prosecution may make an opening statement. - -(_c_) The prosecution shall produce its evidence subject to the cross -examination of its witnesses. - -(_d_) The defense may make an opening statement. - -(_e_) The defense shall produce its evidence subject to the cross -examination of its witnesses. - -(_f_) Such rebutting evidence as may be held by the tribunal to be -material may be produced by either the prosecution or the defense. - -(_g_) The defense shall address the court. - -(_h_) The prosecution shall address the court. - -(_i_) Each defendant may make a statement to the tribunal. - -(_j_) The tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence. - - Article XII - -A Central Secretariat to assist the tribunals to be appointed hereunder -shall be established as soon as practicable. The main office of the -Secretariat shall be located in Nuernberg. The Secretariat shall consist -of a Secretary General and such assistant secretaries, military -officers, clerks, interpreters and other personnel as may be necessary. - - Article XIII - -The Secretary General shall be appointed by the Military Governor and -shall organize and direct the work of the Secretariat. He shall be -subject to the supervision of the members of the tribunals, except that -when at least three tribunals shall be functioning, the presiding judges -of the several tribunals may form the supervisory committee. - - Article XIV - -The Secretariat shall: - -(_a_) Be responsible for the administrative and supply needs of the -Secretariat and of the several tribunals. - -(_b_) Receive all documents addressed to tribunals. - -(_c_) Prepare and recommend uniform rules of procedure, not inconsistent -with the provisions of this Ordinance. - -(_d_) Secure such information for the tribunals as may be needed for the -approval or appointment of defense counsel. - -(_e_) Serve as liaison between the prosecution and defense counsel. - -(_f_) Arrange for aid to be given defendants and the prosecution in -obtaining production of witnesses or evidence as authorized by the -tribunals. - -(_g_) Be responsible for the preparation of the records of the -proceedings before the tribunals. - -(_h_) Provide the necessary clerical, reporting and interpretative -services to the tribunals and its members, and perform such other duties -as may be required for the efficient conduct of the proceedings before -the tribunals, or as may be requested by any of the tribunals. - - Article XV - -The judgments of the tribunals as to the guilt or the innocence of any -defendant shall give the reasons on which they are based and shall be -final and not subject to review. The sentences imposed may be subject to -review as provided in Article XVII, _infra_. - - Article XVI - -The tribunal shall have the right to impose upon the defendant, upon -conviction, such punishment as shall be determined by the tribunal to be -just, which may consist of one or more of the penalties provided in -Article II, Section 3 of Control Council Law No. 10. - - Article XVII - -(_a_) Except as provided in (_b_) _infra_, the record of each case shall -be forwarded to the Military Governor who shall have the power to -mitigate, reduce or otherwise alter the sentence imposed by the -tribunal, but may not increase the severity thereof. - -(_b_) In cases tried before tribunals authorized by Article II (_c_), -the sentence shall be reviewed jointly by the zone commanders of the -nations involved, who mitigate, reduce or otherwise alter the sentence -by majority vote, but may not increase the severity thereof. If only two -nations are represented, the sentence may be altered only by the consent -of both zone commanders. - - Article XVIII - -No sentence of death shall be carried into execution unless and until -confirmed in writing by the Military Governor. In accordance with -Article III, Section 5 of Law No. 10, execution of the death sentence -may be deferred by not to exceed one month after such confirmation if -there is reason to believe that the testimony of the convicted person -may be of value in the investigation and trial of other crimes. - - Article XIX - -Upon the pronouncement of a death sentence by a tribunal established -thereunder and pending confirmation thereof, the condemned will be -remanded to the prison or place where he was confined and there be -segregated from the other inmates, or be transferred to a more -appropriate place of confinement. - - Article XX - -Upon the confirmation of a sentence of death the Military Governor will -issue the necessary orders for carrying out the execution. - - Article XXI - -Where sentence of confinement for a term of years has been imposed the -condemned shall be confined in the manner directed by the tribunal -imposing sentence. The place of confinement may be changed from time to -time by the Military Governor. - - Article XXII - -Any property declared to be forfeited or the restitution of which is -ordered by a tribunal shall be delivered to the Military Governor, for -disposal in accordance with Control Council Law No. 10, Article II (3). - - Article XXIII - -Any of the duties and functions of the Military Governor provided for -herein may be delegated to the Deputy Military Governor. Any of the -duties and functions of the Zone Commander provided for herein may be -exercised by and in the name of the Military Governor and may be -delegated to the Deputy Military Governor. - -This Ordinance becomes effective 18 October 1946. - BY ORDER OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT. - - * * * * * - - - - - MILITARY GOVERNMENT—GERMANY - ORDINANCE NO. 11 - - -_AMENDING MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 7 OF 18 OCTOBER 1946, -ENTITLED “ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF CERTAIN MILITARY TRIBUNALS”_ - - Article I - -Article V of Ordinance No. 7 is amended by adding thereto a new -subdivision to be designated “(_g_)”, reading as follows: - -“(_g_) The presiding judges, and, when established, the supervisory -committee of presiding judges provided in Article XIII shall assign the -cases brought by the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to the various -Military Tribunals for trial.” - - Article II - -Ordinance No. 7 is amended by adding thereto a new article following -Article V to be designated Article V-B, reading as follows: - -“(_a_) A joint session of the Military Tribunals may be called by any of -the presiding judges thereof or upon motion, addressed to each of the -Tribunals, of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes or of counsel for any -defendant whose interests are affected, to hear argument upon and to -review any interlocutory ruling by any of the Military Tribunals on a -fundamental or important legal question either substantive or -procedural, which ruling is in conflict with or is inconsistent with a -prior ruling of another of the Military Tribunals. - -“(_b_) A joint session of the Military Tribunals may be called in the -same manner as provided in subsection (_a_) of this Article to hear -argument upon and to review conflicting or inconsistent final rulings -contained in the decisions or judgments of any of the Military Tribunals -on a fundamental or important legal question, either substantive or -procedural. Any motion with respect to such final ruling shall be filed -within ten (10) days following the issuance of decision or judgment. - -“(_c_) Decisions by joint sessions of the Military Tribunals, unless -thereafter altered in another joint session, shall be binding upon all -the Military Tribunals. In the case of the review of final rulings by -joint sessions, the judgments reviewed may be confirmed or remanded for -action consistent with the joint decision. - -“(_d_) The presence of a majority of the members of each Military -Tribunal then constituted is required to constitute a quorum. - -“(_e_) The members of the Military Tribunals shall, before any joint -session begins, agree among themselves upon the selection from their -number of a member to preside over the joint session. - -“(_f_) Decisions shall be by majority vote of the members. If the votes -of the members are equally divided, the vote of the member presiding -over the session shall be decisive.” - - Article III - -Subdivisions (_g_) and (_h_) of Article XI of Ordinance No. 7 are -deleted; subdivision (_i_) is re-lettered “(_h_)”; subdivision (_j_) is -relettered “(_i_)”; and a new subdivision, to be designated “(_g_)”, is -added, reading as follows: - -“(_g_) The prosecution and defense shall address the court in such order -as the Tribunal may determine.” - -This Ordinance becomes effective 17 February 1947. - BY ORDER OF THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT. - - - - - OFFICIALS OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL - - - Secretaries General - -MR. CHARLES E. SANDS From 25 October 1946 to 17 November - 1946. -MR. GEORGE M. READ From 18 November 1946 to 19 January - 1947. -MR. CHARLES E. SANDS From 20 January 1947 to 18 April - 1947. -COLONEL JOHN E. RAY From 19 April 1947 to 9 May 1948. -DR. HOWARD H. RUSSELL From 10 May 1948 to 1 December 1949. - - Deputy and Executive Secretaries General - -MR. CHARLES E. SANDS Deputy from 18 November 1946 to 10 - January 1947. -JUDGE RICHARD D. DIXON Acting Deputy from 25 November 1946 - to 5 March 1947. -MR. HENRY A. HENDRY Deputy from 6 March 1947 to 9 May - 1947. -MR. HOMER B. MILLARD Executive Secretary General from 3 - March 1947 to 5 October 1947. -LIEUTENANT COLONEL HERBERT N. Executive Secretary General from 6 - HOLSTEN October 1947 to 30 April 1949. - - Assistant Secretaries General - - [Since many trials were being held simultaneously, an Assistant - Secretary General was designated by the Secretary General for - each case. Assistant Secretaries General are listed with the - members of each tribunal.] - - Marshals of Military Tribunals - -COLONEL CHARLES W. MAYS From 4 November 1946 to 5 September - 1947. -COLONEL SAMUEL L. METCALFE From 7 September 1947 to 29 August - 1948. -CAPTAIN KENYON S. JENCKES From 30 August 1948 to 30 April - 1949. - - Court Archives - -MRS. BARBARA S. MANDELLAUR Chief from 21 February 1947 to 30 - April 1949. - - Defense Information Center - -MR. LAMBERTUS WARTENA Defense Administrator from 3 March - 1947 to 16 September 1947. -LIEUTENANT COLONEL HERBERT N. Defense Administrator from 17 - HOLSTEN September 1947 to 19 October 1947. -MAJOR ROBERT G. SCHAEFER Defense Administrator from 20 - October 1947 to 30 April 1949. - - - - - “The Medical Case” - - MILITARY TRIBUNAL NO. 1 - - CASE 1 - - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - - —against— - -KARL BRANDT, SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER, PAUL ROSTOCK, OSKAR SCHROEDER, KARL -GENZKEN, KARL GEBHARDT, KURT BLOME, RUDOLF BRANDT, JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY, -HELMUT POPPENDICK, WOLFRAM SIEVERS, GERHARD ROSE, SIEGFRIED RUFF, HANS -WOLFGANG ROMBERG, =Viktor Brack=, HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG, -GEORG AUGUST WELTZ, =Konrad Schaefer=, WALDEMAR HOVEN, -WILHELM BEIGLBOECK, =Adolf Pokorny=, HERTA OBERHEUSER, and -FRITZ FISCHER, _Defendants_ - - - - - INTRODUCTION - - -The “Doctors Trial” or “Medical Case”—officially designated _United -States of America_ vs. _Karl Brandt_, _et al._ (Case No. 1)—was tried -at the Palace of Justice in Nuernberg before Military Tribunal I. The -Tribunal convened 139 times, and the duration of the trial is shown by -the following schedule: - - Indictment filed 25 October 1946 - Indictment served 5 November 1946 - Arraignment 21 November 1946 - Prosecution opening statement 9 December 1946 - Defense opening statement 29 January 1947 - Prosecution closing statement 14 July 1947 - Defense closing statements 14-18 July 1947 - Judgment 19 August 1947 - Sentences 20 August 1947 - Affirmation of sentences by Military 25 November 1947 - Commander of the United States Zone of - Occupation - Order of the United States Supreme Court 16 February 1948 - denying writ of habeas corpus - -The death sentences imposed on Karl Brandt, Rudolf Brandt, Karl -Gebhardt, Joachim Mrugowsky, Viktor Brack, Wolfram Sievers, and Waldemar -Hoven were put into execution on 2 June 1948. - -The English transcript of the Court proceedings runs to 11,538 -mimeographed pages. The prosecution introduced into evidence 570 written -exhibits (some of which contained several documents), and the defense -901 written exhibits. The Tribunal heard oral testimony of 32 witnesses -called by the prosecution and of 30 witnesses, excluding the defendants, -called by the defense. Each of the 23 defendants testified in his own -behalf, and each was subject to examination on behalf of other -defendants. The exhibits offered by both the prosecution and defense -contained documents, photographs, affidavits, interrogatories, letters, -maps, charts, and other written evidence. The prosecution introduced 49 -affidavits; the defense introduced 535 affidavits. The prosecution -called 3 defense affiants for cross-examination; the defense called 13 -prosecution affiants for cross-examination. The case-in-chief of the -prosecution took 25 court days and the case for the 23 defendants took -107 court days. The Tribunal was in recess between 18 and 27 January -1947 to give the defense additional time to prepare its case. A further -recess was taken from 3 to 14 July 1947 to allow both prosecution and -defense time for the preparation of their closing arguments. - -The members of the Tribunal and prosecution and defense counsel are -listed on the ensuing pages. Prosecution counsel were assisted in -preparing the case by Walter Rapp (Chief of the Evidence Division), Fred -Rodell, Norbert Barr, and Herbert Meyer, interrogators, and Henry Sachs, -Eleanor Anspacher, Nancy Fenstermacher, and Olga Lang, research and -documentary analysts. - - * * * * * - -Selection and arrangement of the “Medical Case” material published -herein was accomplished principally by Arnost Horlik-Hochwald, working -under the general supervision of Drexel A. Sprecher, Deputy Chief -Counsel and Director of Publications, Office U. S. Chief of Counsel for -War Crimes. Catherine W. Bedford, Henry Buxbaum, Emilie Evand, Gertrude -Ferencz, Paul H. Gantt, Constance Gavares, Olga Lang, Helga Lund, -Gwendoline Niebergall, Johanna K. Reischer, Hans Sachs, and Enid M. -Standring assisted in selecting, compiling, editing, and indexing the -numerous papers. - -John H. E. Fried, Special Legal Consultant to the Tribunals, reviewed -and approved the selection and arrangement of the material as the -designated representative of the Nuernberg Tribunals. - -Final compilation and editing of the manuscript for printing was -administered by the War Crimes Division, Office of the Judge Advocate -General, under the direct supervision of Richard A. Olbeter, Chief, -Special Projects Branch, with Alma Soller as editor and John W. -Mosenthal as research analyst. - - - - - ORDER CONSTITUTING TRIBUNAL I - - - OFFICE OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT FOR GERMANY (U. S.) - APO 742 - - GENERAL ORDERS } - No. 68 } 26 October 1946 - - Pursuant to Military Government Ordinance No. 7 - -1. Pursuant to Military Government Ordinance No. 7, 24 October 1946, -entitled “Organization and Powers of Certain Military Tribunals”, there -is hereby constituted, Military Tribunal I. - -2. The following are designated as members of Military Tribunal I: - - WALTER B. BEALS Presiding Judge - HAROLD L. SEBRING Judge - JOHNSON TAL CRAWFORD Judge - VICTOR C. SWEARINGEN Alternate Judge - -3. The Tribunal shall convene at Nuernberg, Germany, to hear such cases -as may be filed by the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes or by his duly -designated representative. - -4. This order is effective as of 25 October 1946. - - BY COMMAND OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLAY: - - C. K. GAILEY - _Brigadier General, USA_ - _Chief of Staff_ - -OFFICIAL: - G. H. GARDE - _Lieutenant Colonel, AGD_ - _Adjutant General_ -DISTRIBUTION: “B” plus - 2-NRU USFET - - - - - MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL - - -JUDGE WALTER B. BEALS, Presiding Judge. - - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. - -JUDGE HAROLD L. SEBRING, Member. - - Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida. - -JUDGE JOHNSON T. CRAWFORD, Member. - - Formerly Judge of a District Court of the State of Oklahoma. - -JUDGE VICTOR C. SWEARINGEN, Alternate Member. - - Formerly Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United -States. - - ASSISTANT SECRETARIES GENERAL - - MR. DEHULL N. TRAVIS From 21 November 1946 to 6 June 1947 - MAJOR MILLS C. HATFIELD From 17 June 1947 to 14 July 1947 - MISS M. A. ROYCE From 15 July 1947 to 20 August 1947 - - - - -[Illustration: TRIBUNAL I—CASE ONE. - _Left to Right: Harold L. Sebring_; _Walter B. Beals, Presiding_; - _Johnson Tal Crawford_; _Victor C. Swearingen, Alternate_.] - -[Illustration: _General view of courtroom on opening day of trial. Upper -left: Court reporter and translators. Left: Defendants and defense -counsel. At rostrum: Brigadier General Telford Taylor, Chief of Counsel -for War Crimes Right: Judges and court clerks of Tribunal I. Foreground: -Members of the prosecution staff with Mr. James McHaney, Chief -Prosecutor, and Mr. Alexander Hardy, Associate Prosecutor, seated at -table directly behind Brigadier General Taylor._] - -[Illustration: _View of the defendants and defense council, 9th December -1946. The defendants are, left to right: (front row) Karl Brandt, -Siegfried Handloser, Paul Rostock, Oskar Schroeder, Karl Genzken, Karl -Gerbhardt, Kurt Blome, Joachim Mrugowsky, Rudolph Brandt, Helmut -Poppendick, Wolfram Sievers; (back row) Gerhard Rose, Siegfried Ruff, -Viktor Brack, Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Hermann Becker-Freyseng, Georg -August Weltz, Konrad Schaeffer, Waldemar Haven, Wilhelm Beiglboeck, -Adolf Pokorny, Herta Oberheuser, Fritz Fischer._] - -[Illustration: _The defendant Gerhard Rose at work in his cell on his -defense material._] - - - - - PROSECUTION COUNSEL - - -_Chief of Counsel_: - BRIGADIER GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR - -_Chief Prosecutor_: - MR. JAMES M. MCHANEY - -_Associate Counsel_: - MR. ALEXANDER G. HARDY - MR. ARNOST HORLIK-HOCHWALD - -_Assistant Counsel_: - MR. GLEN J. BROWN - MISS ESTHER J. JOHNSON - MR. JACK W. ROBBINS - MR. DANIEL J. SHILLER - - - - - DEFENSE COUNSEL - - -_Defendants_ _Defense Counsel_ _Associate Defense - Counsel_ -BRANDT, KARL DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS DR. RUDOLF SCHMIDT -HANDLOSER, SIEGFRIED DR. OTTO NELTE -ROSTOCK, PAUL DR. HANS PRIBILLA -SCHROEDER, OSKAR DR. HANNS MARX DR. WALTER DEHNER -GENZKEN, KARL DR. RUDOLF MERKEL DR. ALFRED BRENNER -GEHARDT, KARL DR. ALFRED SEIDL DR. GEORG GIERL -BLOME, KURT DR. FRITZ SAUTER -BRANDT, RUDOLF DR. KURT KAUFFMANN -MRUGOWSKY, JOACHIM DR. FRITZ FLEMMING -POPPENDICK, HELMUT DR. GEORG BOEHM DR. HELMUT DUERR -SIEVERS, WOLFRAM DR. JOSEF WEISGERBER DR. ERICH BERGLER -ROSE, GERHARD DR. HANS FRITZ -RUFF, SIEGFRIED DR. FRITZ SAUTER -ROMBERG, HANS WOLFGANG DR. BERND VORWERK -BRACK, VIKTOR DR. GEORG FROESCHMANN -BECKER-FREYSENG, HERMANN DR. HANNS MARX DR. WALTER DEHNER -WELTZ, GEORG AUGUST DR. SIEGFRIED WILLE -SCHAEFER, KONRAD DR. HORST PELCKMANN -HOVEN, WALDEMAR DR. HANS GAWLIK DR. GERHARD KLINNERT -BEIGLBOECK, WILHELM DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER -POKORNY, ADOLF DR. KARL HOFFMANN DR. HANS-GUNTHER - SERAPHIM -OBERHEUSER, HERTA DR. ALFRED SEIDL DR. GEORG GIERL -FISCHER, FRITZ DR. ALFRED SEIDL DR. GEORG GIERL - - - - - I. INDICTMENT - - -The United States of America, by the undersigned Telford Taylor, Chief -of Counsel for War Crimes, duly appointed to represent said Government -in the prosecution of war criminals, charges that the defendants herein -participated in a common design or conspiracy to commit and did commit -war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined in Control Council -Law No. 10, duly enacted by the Allied Control Council on 20 December -1945. These crimes included murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, -atrocities, and other inhumane acts, as set forth in counts one, two, -and three of this indictment. Certain defendants are further charged -with membership in a criminal organization, as set forth in count four -of this indictment. - -The persons accused as guilty of these crimes and accordingly named as -defendants in this case are— - - KARL BRANDT—Personal physician to Adolf Hitler; Gruppenfuehrer - in the SS and Generalleutnant (Major General) in the Waffen SS; - Reich Commissioner for Health and Sanitation (Reichskommissar - fuer Sanitaets- und Gesundheitswesen); and member of the Reich - Research Council (Reichsforschungsrat). - - SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER—Generaloberstabsarzt (Lieutenant General, - Medical Service); Medical Inspector of the Army - (Heeressanitaetsinspekteur); and Chief of the Medical Services - of the Armed Forces (Chef des Wehrmachtsanitaetswesens). - - PAUL ROSTOCK—Chief Surgeon of the Surgical Clinic in Berlin; - Surgical Adviser to the Army; and Chief of the Office for - Medical Science and Research (Amtschef der Dienststelle - Medizinische Wissenschaft und Forschung) under the defendant - Karl Brandt, Reich Commissioner for Health and Sanitation. - - OSKAR SCHROEDER—Generaloberstabsarzt (Lieutenant General - Medical Service); Chief of Staff of the Inspectorate of the - Medical Service of the Luftwaffe (Chef des Stabes, Inspekteur - des Luftwaffe-Sanitaetswesens); and Chief of the Medical Service - of the Luftwaffe (Chef des Sanitaetswesens der Luftwaffe). - - KARL GENZKEN—Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and Generalleutnant - (Major General) in the Waffen SS; and Chief of the Medical - Department of the Waffen SS (Chef des Sanitaetsamts der Waffen - SS). - - KARL GERHARDT—Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and Generalleutnant - (Major General) in the Waffen SS; personal physician to - Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler; Chief Surgeon of the Staff of the - Reich Physician SS and Police (Oberster Kliniker, Reichsarzt SS - und Polizei); and President of the German Red Cross. KURT - BLOME—Deputy [of the] Reich Health Leader - (Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer); and Plenipotentiary for Cancer - Research in the Reich Research Council. - - RUDOLF BRANDT—Standartenfuehrer (Colonel); in the Allgemeine - SS; Personal Administrative Officer to Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler - (Persoenlicher Referent von Himmler); and Ministerial Counsellor - and Chief of the Ministerial Office in the Reich Ministry of the - Interior. - - JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY—Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel) in the Waffen - SS; Chief Hygienist of the Reich Physician SS and Police - (Oberster Hygieniker, Reichsarzt SS und Polizei); and Chief of - the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS (Chef des Hygienischen - Institutes der Waffen SS). - - HELMUT POPPENDICK—Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel) in the SS; and - Chief of the Personal Staff of the Reich Physician SS and Police - (Chef des Persoenlichen Stabes des Reichsarztes SS und Polizei). - - WOLFRAM SIEVERS—Standartenfuehrer (Colonel) in the SS; Reich - Manager of the “Ahnenerbe” Society and Director of its Institute - for Military Scientific Research (Institut fuer - Wehrwissenschaftliche Zweckforschung); and Deputy Chairman of - the Managing Board of Directors of the Reich Research Council. - - GERHARD ROSE—Generalarzt of the Luftwaffe (Brigadier General, - Medical Service of the Air Force); Vice President, Chief of the - Department for Tropical Medicine, and Professor of the Robert - Koch Institute; and Hygienic Adviser for Tropical Medicine to - the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. - - SIEGFRIED RUFF—Director of the Department for Aviation Medicine - at the German Experimental Institute for Aviation (Deutsche - Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt). - - HANS WOLFGANG ROMBERG—Doctor on the Staff of the Department for - Aviation Medicine at the German Experimental Institute for - Aviation. - - VIKTOR BRACK—Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel) in the SS and - Sturmbannfuehrer (Major) in the Waffen SS; and Chief - Administrative Officer in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer of the - NSDAP (Oberdienstleiter, Kanzlei des Fuehrers der NSDAP). - - HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG—Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe (Captain, - Medical Service of the Air Force); and Chief of the Department - for Aviation Medicine of the Chief of the Medical Service of the - Luftwaffe. - - GEORG AUGUST WELTZ—Oberfeldarzt in the Luftwaffe (Lieutenant - Colonel, Medical Service of the Air Force); and Chief of the - Institute for Aviation Medicine in Munich (Institut fuer - Luftfahrtmedizin). KONRAD SCHAEFER—Doctor on the Staff of the - Institute for Aviation Medicine in Berlin. - - WALDEMAR HOVEN—Hauptsturmfuehrer (Captain) in the Waffen SS; - and Chief Doctor of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. - - WILHELM BEIGLBOECK—Consulting Physician to the Luftwaffe. - - ADOLF POKORNY—Physician, Specialist in Skin and Venereal - Diseases. - - HERTA OBERHEUSER—Physician at the Ravensbrueck Concentration - Camp; and Assistant Physician to the defendant Gebhardt at the - Hospital at Hohenlychen. - - FRITZ FISCHER—Sturmbannfuehrer (Major) in the Waffen SS; and - Assistant Physician to the defendant Gebhardt at the Hospital at - Hohenlychen. - - COUNT ONE—THE COMMON DESIGN OR CONSPIRACY - -1. Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein, -acting pursuant to a common design, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly -did conspire and agree together and with each other and with divers -other persons, to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, as -defined in Control Council Law No. 10, Article II. - -2. Throughout the period covered by this indictment all of the -defendants herein, acting in concert with each other and with others, -unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly were principals in, accessories to, -ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with -plans and enterprises involving the commission of war crimes and crimes -against humanity. - -3. All of the defendants herein, acting in concert with others for whose -acts the defendants are responsible, unlawfully, willfully, and -knowingly participated as leaders, organizers, investigators, and -accomplices in the formulation and execution of the said common design, -conspiracy, plans, and enterprises to commit, and which involved the -commission of, war crimes and crimes against humanity. - -4. It was a part of the said common design, conspiracy, plans, and -enterprises to perform medical experiments upon concentration camp -inmates and other living human subjects, without their consent, in the -course of which experiments the defendants committed the murders, -brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts, -more fully described in counts two and three of this indictment. - -5. The said common design, conspiracy, plans, and enterprises embraced -the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as set forth -in counts two and three of this indictment, in that the defendants -unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly encouraged, aided, abetted, and -participated in the subjection of thousands of persons, including -civilians, and members of the armed forces of nations then at war with -the German Reich, to murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, -atrocities, and other inhuman acts. - - COUNT TWO—WAR CRIMES - -6. Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein -unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as defined by -Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals -in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and -were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments -without the subjects’ consent, upon civilians and members of the armed -forces of nations then at war with the German Reich and who were in the -custody of the German Reich in exercise of belligerent control, in the -course of which experiments the defendants committed murders, -brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. -Such experiments included, but were not limited to, the following: - -(_A_) _High-Altitude Experiments._ From about March 1942 to about August -1942 experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp, for -the benefit of the German Air Force, to investigate the limits of human -endurance and existence at extremely high altitudes. The experiments -were carried out in a low-pressure chamber in which the atmospheric -conditions and pressures prevailing at high altitude (up to 68,000 feet) -could be duplicated. The experimental subjects were placed in the -low-pressure chamber and thereafter the simulated altitude therein was -raised. Many victims died as a result of these experiments and others -suffered grave injury, torture, and ill-treatment. The defendants Karl -Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, -Poppendick, Sievers, Ruff, Romberg, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz are -charged with special responsibility for and participation in these -crimes. - -(_B_) _Freezing Experiments._ From about August 1942 to about May 1943 -experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp, primarily -for the benefit of the German Air Force, to investigate the most -effective means of treating persons who had been severely chilled or -frozen. In one series of experiments the subjects were forced to remain -in a tank of ice water for periods up to 3 hours. Extreme rigor -developed in a short time. Numerous victims died in the course of these -experiments. After the survivors were severely chilled, rewarming was -attempted by various means. In another series of experiments, the -subjects were kept naked outdoors for many hours at temperatures below -freezing. The victims screamed with pain as parts of their bodies froze. -The defendants Karl Brand, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf -Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz are -charged with special responsibility for and participation in these -crimes. - -(_C_) _Malaria Experiments._ From about February 1942 to about April -1945 experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp in -order to investigate immunization for and treatment of malaria. Healthy -concentration-camp inmates were infected by mosquitoes or by injections -of extracts of the mucous glands of mosquitoes. After having contracted -malaria the subjects were treated with various drugs to test their -relative efficacy. Over 1,000 involuntary subjects were used in these -experiments. Many of the victims died and others suffered severe pain -and permanent disability. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, -Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and -Sievers are charged with special responsibility for and participation in -these crimes. - -(_D_) _Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments._ At various times between -September 1939 and April 1945 experiments were conducted at -Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler, and other concentration camps for the benefit -of the German Armed Forces to investigate the most effective treatment -of wounds caused by Lost gas. Lost is a poison gas which is commonly -known as mustard gas. Wounds deliberately inflicted on the subjects were -infected with Lost. Some of the subjects died as a result of these -experiments and others suffered intense pain and injury. The defendants -Karl Brandt, Handloser, Blome, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, and -Sievers are charged with special responsibility for and participation in -these crimes. - -(_E_) _Sulfanilamide Experiments._ From about July 1942 to about -September 1943 experiments to investigate the effectiveness of -sulfanilamide were conducted at the Ravensbrueck concentration camp for -the benefit of the German Armed Forces. Wounds deliberately inflicted on -the experimental subjects were infected with bacteria such as -streptococcus, gas gangrene, and tetanus. Circulation of blood was -interrupted by tying off blood vessels at both ends of the wound to -create a condition similar to that of a battlefield wound. Infection was -aggravated by forcing wood shavings and ground glass into the wounds. -The infection was treated with sulfanilamide and other drugs to -determine their effectiveness. Some subjects died as a result of these -experiments and others suffered serious injury and intense agony. The -defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, -Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng, -Oberheuser, and Fischer are charged with special responsibility for and -participation in these crimes. - -(_F_) _Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation -Experiments._ From about September 1942 to about December 1943 -experiments were conducted at the Ravensbrueck concentration camp, for -the benefit of the German Armed Forces, to study bone, muscle, and nerve -regeneration, and bone transplantation from one person to another. -Sections of bones, muscles, and nerves were removed from the subjects. -As a result of these operations, many victims suffered intense agony, -mutilation, and permanent disability. The defendants Karl Brandt, -Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Oberheuser, and Fischer are -charged with special responsibility for and participation in these -crimes. - -(_G_) _Sea-water Experiments._ From about July 1944 to about September -1944 experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp, for -the benefit of the German Air Force and Navy, to study various methods -of making sea-water drinkable. The subjects were deprived of all food -and given only chemically processed sea-water. Such experiments caused -great pain and suffering and resulted in serious bodily injury to the -victims. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, -Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, -Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck are charged with special -responsibility for and participation in these crimes. - -(_H_) _Epidemic Jaundice Experiments._ From about June 1943 to about -January 1945 experiments were conducted at the Sachsenhausen and -Natzweiler concentration camps, for the benefit of the German Armed -Forces, to investigate the causes of, and inoculations against, epidemic -jaundice. Experimental subjects were deliberately infected with epidemic -jaundice, some of whom died as a result, and others were caused great -pain and suffering. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, -Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, -Rose, and Becker-Freyseng are charged with special responsibility for -and participation in these crimes. - -(_I_) _Sterilization Experiments._ From about March 1941 to about -January 1945 sterilization experiments were conducted at the Auschwitz -and Ravensbrueck concentration camps, and other places. The purpose of -these experiments was to develop a method of sterilization which would -be suitable for sterilizing millions of people with a minimum of time -and effort. These experiments were conducted by means of X-ray, surgery, -and various drugs. Thousands of victims were sterilized and thereby -suffered great mental and physical anguish. The defendants Karl Brandt, -Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Brack, Pokorny, and -Oberheuser are charged with special responsibility for and participation -in these crimes. - -(_J_) _Spotted Fever (Fleckfieber)[2] Experiments._ From about December -1941 to about February 1945 experiments were conducted at the Buchenwald -and Natzweiler concentration camps, for the benefit of the German Armed -Forces, to investigate the effectiveness of spotted fever and other -vaccines. At Buchenwald numerous healthy inmates were deliberately -infected with spotted fever virus in order to keep the virus alive; over -90 percent of the victims died as a result. Other healthy inmates were -used to determine the effectiveness of different spotted fever vaccines -and of various chemical substances. In the course of these experiments -75 percent of the selected number of inmates were vaccinated with one of -the vaccines or nourished with one of the chemical substances and, after -a period of 3 to 4 weeks, were infected with spotted fever germs. The -remaining 25 percent were infected without any previous protection in -order to compare the effectiveness of the vaccines and the chemical -substances. As a result, hundreds of the persons experimented upon died. -Experiments with yellow fever, smallpox, typhus, paratyphus[3] A and B, -cholera, and diphtheria were also conducted. Similar experiments with -like results were conducted at Natzweiler concentration camp. The -defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, -Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose, -Becker-Freyseng, and Hoven are charged with special responsibility for -and participation in these crimes. - -(_K_) _Experiments with Poison._ In or about December 1943, and in or -about October 1944, experiments were conducted at the Buchenwald -concentration camp to investigate the effect of various poisons upon -human beings. The poisons were secretly administered to experimental -subjects in their food. The victims died as a result of the poison or -were killed immediately in order to permit autopsies. In or about -September 1944 experimental subjects were shot with poison bullets and -suffered torture and death. The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, -and Poppendick are charged with special responsibility for and -participation in these crimes. - -(_L_) _Incendiary Bomb Experiments._ From about November 1943 to about -January 1944 experiments were conducted at the Buchenwald concentration -camp to test the effect of various pharmaceutical preparations on -phosphorous burns. These burns were inflicted on experimental subjects -with phosphorous matter taken from incendiary bombs, and caused severe -pain, suffering, and serious bodily injury. The defendants Genzken, -Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick are charged with special -responsibility for and participation in these crimes. - -7. Between June 1943 and September 1944 the defendants Rudolf Brandt and -Sievers unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as -defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were -principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part -in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the murder -of civilians and members of the armed forces of nations then at war with -the German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich in -exercise of belligerent control. One hundred twelve Jews were selected -for the purpose of completing a skeleton collection for the Reich -University of Strasbourg. Their photographs and anthropological -measurements were taken. Then they were killed. Thereafter, comparison -tests, anatomical research, studies regarding race, pathological -features of the body, form and size of the brain, and other tests, were -made. The bodies were sent to Strasbourg and defleshed. - -8. Between May 1942 and January 1944[4] the defendants Blome and Rudolf -Brandt unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as -defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were -principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part -in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the murder -and mistreatment of tens of thousands of Polish nationals who were -civilians and members of the armed forces of a nation then at war with -the German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich in -exercise of belligerent control. These people were alleged to be -infected with incurable tuberculosis. On the ground of insuring the -health and welfare of Germans in Poland, many tubercular Poles were -ruthlessly exterminated while others were isolated in death camps with -inadequate medical facilities. - -9. Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendants Karl Brandt, -Blome, Brack, and Hoven unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed -war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in -that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a -consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises -involving the execution of the so-called “euthanasia” program of the -German Reich in the course of which the defendants herein murdered -hundreds of thousands of human beings, including nationals of -German-occupied countries. This program involved the systematic and -secret execution of the aged, insane, incurably ill, of deformed -children, and other persons, by gas, lethal injections, and diverse -other means in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums. Such persons were -regarded as “useless eaters” and a burden to the German war machine. The -relatives of these victims were informed that they died from natural -causes, such as heart failure. German doctors involved in the -“euthanasia” program were also sent to Eastern occupied countries to -assist in the mass extermination of Jews. - -10. The said war crimes constitute violations of international -conventions, particularly of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 46 of the Hague -Regulations, 1907, and of Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Prisoner-of-War -Convention (Geneva, 1929), the laws and customs of war, the general -principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all -civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which -such crimes were committed, and of Article II of Control Council Law No. -10. - - COUNT THREE—CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY - -11. Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein -unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity, -as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they -were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting -part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical -experiments, without the subjects’ consent, upon German civilians and -nationals of other countries, in the course of which experiments the -defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, -atrocities, and other inhuman acts. The particulars concerning such -experiments are set forth in paragraph 6 of count two of this indictment -and are incorporated herein by reference. - -12. Between June 1943 and September 1944 the defendants Rudolf Brandt -and Sievers unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes -against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. -10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, -took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises -involving the murder of German civilians and nationals of other -countries. The particulars concerning such murders are set forth in -paragraph 7 of count two of this indictment and are incorporated herein -by reference. - -13. Between May 1942 and January 1944[5] the defendants Blome and Rudolf -Brandt unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against -humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in -that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a -consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises -involving the murder and mistreatment of tens of thousands of Polish -nationals. The particulars concerning such murder and inhuman treatment -are set forth in paragraph 8 of count two of this indictment and are -incorporated herein by reference. - -14. Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendants Karl Brandt, -Blome, Brack, and Hoven unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed -crimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law -No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, -abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and -enterprises involving the execution of the so-called “euthanasia” -program of the German Reich, in the course of which the defendants -herein murdered hundreds of thousands of human beings, including German -civilians, as well as civilians of other nations. The particulars -concerning such murders are set forth in paragraph 9 of count two of -this indictment and are incorporated herein by reference. - -15. The said crimes against humanity constitute violations of -international conventions, including Article 46 of the Hague -Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles -of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized -nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes -were committed, and of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10. - - COUNT FOUR—MEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION - -16. The defendants Karl Brandt, Genzken, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, -Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Brack, Hoven, and Fischer are guilty of -membership in an organization declared to be criminal by the -International Military Tribunal in Case No. 1, in that each of the said -defendants was a member of the SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER -NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (commonly known as the -“SS”) after 1 September 1939. Such membership is in violation of -paragraph I (_d_), Article II of Control Council Law No. 10. - -Wherefore, this indictment is filed with the Secretary General of the -Military Tribunals and the charges herein made against the above-named -defendants are hereby presented to MILITARY TRIBUNAL NO. I. - - TELFORD TAYLOR - - _Brigadier General, USA_ - - _Chief of Counsel for War Crimes_ - - _Acting on Behalf of the United States of America_ - -Nuernberg, _25 October 1946_ - ------ - -[2] It was definitely ascertained in the course of the proceedings, by -both prosecution and defense, that the correct translation of -“Fleckfieber” is _typhus_. A finding to this effect is contained in the -judgment. A similar initial inadequate translation occurred in the case -of “typhus” and “paratyphus” which should be rendered as _typhoid_ and -_paratyphoid_. - -[3] Ibid. - -[4] Indictment originally read “January 1943” but was amended by a -motion filed with the Secretary General. See Arraignment, p. 18. - -[5] Ibid. - - - - - II. ARRAIGNMENT - - -Extract from the official Transcript of Military Tribunal I in the -matter of the _United States of America_ vs. _Karl Brandt et al._, -defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 21 November 1946, Judge -Beals presiding. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: We will now proceed to arraign the defendants on -the cause now pending before this Tribunal. As the names of the -defendants are called each defendant will stand, and will remain -standing until told to be seated. Mr. Secretary General of the Tribunal -will call the roll of the defendants. - -THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Karl Brandt, Siegfried Handloser, Paul Rostock, -Oskar Schroeder, Karl Genzken, Karl Gebhardt, Kurt Blome, Rudolf Brandt, -Joachim Mrugowsky, Helmut Poppendick, Wolfram Sievers, Gerhard Rose, -Siegfried Ruff, Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Viktor Brack, Hermann -Becker-Freyseng, Georg August Weltz, Konrad Schaefer, Waldemar Hoven, -Wilhelm Beiglboeck, Adolf Pokorny, Herta Oberheuser, Fritz Fischer. (As -their names are called, the defendants rise.) - -If the Honorable Tribunal please, all of the defendants are in the dock. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The defendants will be seated. - -The counsel for the prosecution will now proceed with the arraignment of -the defendants. - - [Here Brigadier General Taylor read the indictment in full. See - pp. 8-17.] - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I shall now call upon the defendants to plead -guilty or not guilty to the charges against them. Each defendant, as his -name is called, will stand and speak into the microphone. At this time -there will be no arguments, speeches, or discussion of any kind. Each -defendant will simply plead either guilty or not guilty to the offenses -with which he is charged by the indictment. - -Karl Brandt. - -DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. Chairman, before the defendant pleads guilty or not -guilty, may I say a word? I am defense counsel for the defendant -Schaefer, number 18. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: For which defendant? - -DR. PELCKMANN: Schaefer, number 18. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: We are now receiving the plea of the defendant -Karl Brandt. You do not represent him as counsel, do you? - -DR. PELCKMANN: No. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Then I see no reason for counsel for another -defendant making any remarks at this time. - -DR. PELCKMANN: May I speak before the defendant Schaefer speaks? A -formal objection. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: When the name of the defendant Schaefer is -called, you may address the Court. - -Karl Brandt, are you represented by counsel in this proceeding? - -DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: Yes. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How do you plead to the charges and -specifications and each thereof set forth in the indictment against you, -guilty or not guilty? - -DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: Yes. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Be seated. - -Siegfried Handloser, are you represented by counsel in this cause? - -DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: No, I have no counsel yet. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Do you desire that the Tribunal appoint counsel -for you? - -DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: I hope that today or tomorrow I may receive an -affirmative answer from a defense counsel. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Are you at this time ready to plead to the -indictment, guilty or not guilty? - -DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: Yes. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How do you plead to the charges and -specifications and each thereof set forth in the indictment against you, -guilty or not guilty? - -DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: Not guilty. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Be seated. - - [At this point the defendants Paul Rostock, Oskar Schroeder, - Karl Genzken, Karl Gebhardt, Kurt Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Joachim - Mrugowsky, Helmut Poppendick, Wolfram Sievers, Gerhard Rose, - Siegfried Ruff, Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Viktor Brack, Hermann - Becker-Freyseng and Georg August Weltz were arraigned. All were - represented by counsel. All pleaded not guilty to the - indictment.] - -DR. PELCKMANN: Your Honor, may I speak? - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: What is the purpose of the remarks you desire to -make? - -DR. PELCKMANN: I should like to object to the indictment. I should like -to say that in my opinion, as far as Schaefer is concerned, the -indictment does not conform to Ordinance No. 7. I can explain that. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How much time do you desire to present your -argument? - -DR. PELCKMANN: Three minutes. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may proceed. First, have you filed in the -proceeding any written notice of the objection to the indictment and -served it upon the prosecutor? - -DR. PELCKMANN: I have not had the indictment long enough. I have just -had the written material for 2 days. What I have to say I could submit -in writing later. Because of the brief time, I ask to be allowed to make -a brief statement now. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may make a brief statement and submit -argument in support of your objection within 5 days. - -DR. PELCKMANN: Very well. May I now say something? - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may proceed for 3 minutes. - -DR. PELCKMANN: Ordinance No. 7, in Article IV (_a_), prescribes the -following according to the English text: “The indictment shall state the -charges plainly, concisely and with sufficient particulars to inform -defendant of the offenses charged.” Schaefer is charged only on one -count, count two (_G_). Experiments with sea-water in Dachau are charged -against 12 defendants. In two sentences the indictment goes on to say -that the 12 persons who are then named are charged with special -responsibility for these crimes and participation in them. I am of the -opinion that this does not contain sufficient particulars. -“Responsibility” and “participation” are legal concepts. There is no -evidence of “sufficient particulars,” which implies details. - -The indictment, in my opinion, must give facts to indicate how and why -each one of these 12 defendants who, ostensibly, participated in these -experiments, is responsible and participated. My client cannot tell what -the nature of his participation is supposed to have been. - -The indictment says, in count one, number 2, that all defendants were -principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part -in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the -commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those also are -only legal concepts. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may file a written brief in support of your -position. - -DR. PELCKMANN: I should like to add, without the knowledge of the -indictment, my client is not ready to answer the question as to whether -he is guilty or not guilty. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You will serve a copy of your brief upon the -prosecution and file it with the Secretary General. - -DR. PELCKMANN: Very well, your Honor. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: In connection with this matter, General Taylor, -do you desire to make any remarks or suggestions? - -BRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, needless to say, we have no -objection to the making of this motion or the filing of this brief. It -is needless to say, also, that we think the indictment quite adequately -specifies the date, place, and type of experiment charged. The -defendant’s connection with it is better known to the defendant than to -anyone else. There is no reason why he should not enter his plea at this -time. - -JUDGE SEBRING: That would not go to the jurisdictional aspect of the -indictment, but it would go to the question of particulars. The -consideration is whether or not upon the showing of the motion, more -particulars as to the charges specified, should be included. Do you -understand my point? - -BRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Yes, your Honor. That is what I understood. -The prosecution will consider the motion, and if need be, submit -particulars, although we think the indictment is adequate enough. We -think there is no challenge of the jurisdiction. The defendant should be -required to promptly plead. - -JUDGE CRAWFORD: How do you plead to the charges against you? - -DEFENDANT SCHAEFER: Not guilty. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Be seated. - - [At this point the balance of the defendants: Waldemar Hoven, - Wilhelm Beiglboeck, Adolf Pokorny, Herta Oberheuser and Fritz - Fischer were arraigned. All were represented by counsel. All - pleaded not guilty to the indictment.] - -DR. SERVATIUS: Servatius for the defendant Karl Brandt. Your Honor, may -I make an application regarding the submission of documents by the -prosecution? - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may state your application. - -DR. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, I ask the Tribunal to instruct the -prosecution that the documents be submitted to the defense in time, the -documents on which the charge is based. This would make the proceedings -easier and give the defense an opportunity to examine the documents in -time, and to obtain counterproof. - -In the first trial before the International Military Tribunal, we were -given a list of documents with the indictment; although these documents -were not enclosed, we could look at them and we could work on them. Up -to now we have nothing on which we can build our defense. In other -words, on the 9th of December, we will have proceeded no further than -today, and we will not be able to advise our clients. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may be seated and we will hear from the -prosecution, Brigadier General Telford Taylor. - -BRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, the counsel for the defense who -has just spoken is thoroughly familiar with the procedures used in the -prior case. The prosecution in this case plans to follow the same -procedures and give the defense counsel the same opportunities and, if -possible, more. The Defense Information Center, which is the place where -the documents have in the past been made available, will be supplied in -advance with copies of the documents on which our evidence is based. I -would suggest, your Honor, that after all counsel for the defense are -here that it would be most useful if there be a meeting between -representatives of the prosecution and the defense so that procedures -can be developed. But at the moment only half of the counsel for the -defense are here and it would be economical if these matters could be -arranged after they are all present. - -DR. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, may I ask one question? May I add one thing, -that the documents be given to us in German. In the previous trial, -there was difficulty at the beginning because we got them in English. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I believe if counsel for the defense will refer -to the rules promulgated by this Tribunal on 2 November 1946, you will -see that a requirement is made that all such matters be submitted in a -language that is understood by each of the defendants. - -DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, but for technical reasons that was not always done. -There were great difficulties. The conferences with the prosecution will -make it possible to eliminate the difficulties. If it is not possible, I -will address the Court again. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Do you have anything further, General Taylor? - -BRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, the prosecution merely wishes to -note that it has filed with the Secretary General a motion to amend the -indictment in paragraph 8 of count two and paragraph 13 of count three, -by changing 1943 to 1944. The motion has been filed with the Secretary -General and copies of the motion are in German and are in the hands of -defense counsel. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How many of the defendants are concerned with the -amendment to the indictment? My point is that if the— - -MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the amendment occurs first in -paragraph 8 on page 14 of the indictment and it affects only two of the -defendants; namely, Blome and Rudolf Brandt. The amendment is also made -in paragraph 13 because the same facts are there charged as a crime -against humanity. In paragraph 13 only the same two defendants are -involved; that is, defendants Blome and Rudolf Brandt. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: What are the particulars of the amendment? - -MR. MCHANEY: The only change made by the amendment is to say the date -January 1944 for the date January 1943; in other words, it extends the -period covered by the crime for 1 year. The date 1943 was inserted by -mistake in the indictment as filed with the Tribunal. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Are these two defendants represented by counsel -here present this morning? - -MR. MCHANEY: I think that Rudolf Brandt answered “Yes”. - -DEFENDANT BLOME: Yes, your Honor. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Has this motion been served upon counsel for -these two defendants? - -MR. MCHANEY: Your Honor, my understanding is that the motion for -amendment was filed with the Secretary General. If we understand the -rules correctly, the Secretary General then serves it upon the -defendants. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I was just asking for information whether they -had received copies of the motion. - -MR. MCHANEY: That I don’t know. Yes, the counsel for these defendants -say “Yes”. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does counsel for defendant Blome raise any -objection to the amendment of the indictment? - -DR. SAUTER: No. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Kauffmann for Rudolf Brandt. I have no objection to the -change. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You represent Rudolf Brandt? - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Well, the other defendant affected is defendant -Blome, I understand. Is he represented here? - -DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter for the defendant Blome. We don’t have any -objection. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The indictment will be amended in accordance with -the motion. - -Is it agreeable to counsel for these two defendants that the arraignment -as to them upon this count which has just been amended be considered as -pleas to the count as amended now—their pleas of “Not Guilty”? - -DR. SAUTER: Yes. - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: These matters will appear in the records of the -Tribunal. The pleas of the defendants will all be entered in the minutes -of the Tribunal. - - - - - III. STATEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ORDER OF TRIAL AND RULES OF - PROCEDURE, 9 DECEMBER 1946[6] - - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I have a statement which I desire to make for the -benefit of the prosecution, defendants, and all concerned: Before -opening the trial of Case No. 1, _The United States of America against -Karl Brandt, et al._, there are certain matters which the Tribunal -desires to call to the attention of the counsel for the prosecution and -the counsel for the defendants. - -1. The prosecution may be allowed, for the purpose of making the opening -statement in this case, time not to exceed one trial day. This time may -be allocated by the chief prosecutor, between himself and any of his -assistants, as he desires. - -2. When the prosecution has rested its case, defense counsel will be -allowed two trial days in which to make their opening statements, and -which will comprehend the entire theory of their respective defenses. -The time allocated will be divided between the different defense -counsel, as they may themselves agree. In the event the defense counsel -cannot agree, the Tribunal will allocate the time, not to exceed 30 -minutes to each defendant. - -3. The prosecution shall, not less than 24 hours before it desires to -offer any record or document or writing in evidence as part of its -case-in-chief, file with the Defense Information Center not less than -one copy of such record, document, or writing for each of the counsel -for defendants, such copies to be in the German language. The -prosecution shall also deliver to the Defense Information Center at -least four copies thereof in the English language. - -4. When the prosecution or any defendant offers a record, document, or -any other writing, or a copy thereof, in evidence, there shall be -delivered to the Secretary General in addition to the original document -or other instrument in writing so offered for admission in evidence, six -copies of the document. If the document is written or printed in a -language other than English there shall also be filed with the copies of -the document above referred to six copies of an English translation of -the document. If such document is offered by any defendant, suitable -facilities for procuring English translations of that document shall be -made available. - -5. At least 24 hours before a witness is called to the stand, either by -the prosecution or by any defendant, the party who desires to -interrogate the witness shall deliver to the Secretary General an -original and six copies of a memorandum which shall disclose: (1) the -name of the witness; (2) his nationality; (3) his residence or station; -(4) his official rank or position; (5) whether he is called as an expert -witness or as a witness to testify to facts, and if the latter, a -prepared statement of the subject matter on which the witness will be -interrogated. When the prosecution prepares such a statement in -connection with the witness whom it desires to call, at the time of the -filing of this statement, two additional copies thereof shall be -delivered to the Defense Information Center. When a defendant prepares -such a statement concerning a witness whom it desires to call, the -defendant shall at the same time as the copies are filed with the -Secretary General deliver one additional copy to the prosecution. - -6. When either the prosecution or a defendant desires the Tribunal to -take judicial notice of any official Government documents or reports of -the United Nations, including any action, ruling or regulation of any -committee, board, or counsel, heretofore established by or in the Allied -Nations for the investigation of war crimes, or any record made by, or -the findings of, any military or other tribunal, this Tribunal may -refuse to take judicial notice of such documents, rules, or regulations, -unless the party proposing asks this Tribunal to notice such documents, -rules, or regulations judicially, and places a copy thereof in writing -before the Tribunal. - -This Tribunal has learned with satisfaction of the procedure adopted by -the prosecution with the intention of furnishing to the defense counsel -information concerning the writings or documents which the prosecution -expects to offer in evidence for the purpose of affording the defense -counsel information to help them prepare their respective defense to the -indictments. The desire of the Tribunal is that this be made available -to the defendants so as to aid them in the presentation of their -respective defense. - -The United States of America having established this Military Tribunal -I, pursuant to law, through properly empowered military authorities, and -the defendants having been brought before Military Tribunal I pursuant -to the indictment filed 25 October 1946 in the Office of the Secretary -General of the Military Tribunal at Nuernberg, Germany by an officer of -the United States Army, regularly designated as Chief of Counsel for War -Crimes, acting on behalf of the United States of America, pursuant to -appropriate military authority, and the indictment having been served -upon each defendant for more than 30 days prior to this date, and a copy -of the indictment in the German language having been furnished to each -defendant and having been in his possession more than 30 days and each -defendant having had ample opportunity to read the indictment, and -having regularly entered his plea of “not guilty” to the indictment, the -Tribunal is ready to proceed with the trial. - -This Tribunal will conduct the trial in accordance with controlling -laws, rules, and regulations, and with due regard to appropriate -precedents in a sincere endeavor to insure both to the prosecution and -to each and every defendant an opportunity to present all evidence of an -appropriate value bearing upon the issues before the Tribunal; to this -end, that under law and pending regulations impartial justice may be -accomplished. - -The trial, of course, will be a public trial, not one behind closed -doors; but, because of limited facilities available, the Tribunal must -insist that the number of spectators be limited to the seating capacity -of the courtroom. Passes will therefore be issued by the appropriate -authorities to those who may enter the courtroom. The Tribunal will -insist that good order be at all times maintained, and appropriate -measures will be taken to see that this rule is strictly enforced. - -For the information of all concerned, the Tribunal announces that -hearings will be held each day this week commencing at 9:30 o’clock -through Friday. The Tribunal will reconvene at 9:30 o’clock, Monday, 16 -December 1946, and will hold sessions every day of that week including -Saturday, on which day, however, the Tribunal will recess until 9:30 -o’clock, Thursday, 2 January 1947, when the Tribunal will convene at the -usual time. - ------ - -[6] Tr. pp. 9-11. - - - - - IV. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION BY - BRIGADIER GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR, - 9 DECEMBER 1946.[7] - - -The defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures, and -other atrocities committed in the name of medical science. The victims -of these crimes are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. A handful -only are still alive; a few of the survivors will appear in this -courtroom. But most of these miserable victims were slaughtered outright -or died in the course of the tortures to which they were subjected. - -For the most part they are nameless dead. To their murderers, these -wretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots -and were treated worse than animals. They were 200 Jews in good physical -condition, 50 gypsies, 500 tubercular Poles, or 1,000 Russians. The -victims of these crimes are numbered among the anonymous millions who -met death at the hands of the Nazis and whose fate is a hideous blot on -the page of modern history. - -The charges against these defendants are brought in the name of the -United States of America. They are being tried by a court of American -judges. The responsibilities thus imposed upon the representatives of -the United States, prosecutors and judges alike, are grave and unusual. -It is owed, not only to the victims and to the parents and children of -the victims, that just punishment be imposed on the guilty, but also to -the defendants that they be accorded a fair hearing and decision. Such -responsibilities are the ordinary burden of any tribunal. Far wider are -the duties which we must fulfill here. - -These larger obligations run to the peoples and races on whom the -scourge of these crimes was laid. The mere punishment of the defendants, -or even of thousands of others equally guilty, can never redress the -terrible injuries which the Nazis visited on these unfortunate peoples. -For them it is far more important that these incredible events be -established by clear and public proof, so that no one can ever doubt -that they were fact and not fable; and that this Court, as the agent of -the United States and as the voice of humanity, stamp these acts, and -the ideas which engendered them, as barbarous and criminal. - -We have still other responsibilities here. The defendants in the dock -are charged with murder, but this is no mere murder trial. We cannot -rest content when we have shown that crimes were committed and that -certain persons committed them. To kill, to maim, and to torture is -criminal under all modern systems of law. These defendants did not kill -in hot blood, nor for personal enrichment. Some of them may be sadists -who killed and tortured for sport, but they are not all perverts. They -are not ignorant men. Most of them are trained physicians and some of -them are distinguished scientists. Yet these defendants, all of whom -were fully able to comprehend the nature of their acts, and most of whom -were exceptionally qualified to form a moral and professional judgment -in this respect, are responsible for wholesale murder and unspeakably -cruel tortures. - -It is our deep obligation to all peoples of the world to show why and -how these things happened. It is incumbent upon us to set forth with -conspicuous clarity the ideas and motives which moved these defendants -to treat their fellow men as less than beasts. The perverse thoughts and -distorted concepts which brought about these savageries are not dead. -They cannot be killed by force of arms. They must not become a spreading -cancer in the breast of humanity. They must be cut out and exposed, for -the reason so well stated by Mr. Justice Jackson in this courtroom a -year ago— - - “The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so - calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization - cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive - their being repeated.” - -To the German people we owe a special responsibility in these -proceedings. Under the leadership of the Nazis and their war lords, the -German nation spread death and devastation throughout Europe. This the -Germans now know. So, too, do they know the consequences to Germany: -defeat, ruin, prostration, and utter demoralization. Most German -children will never, as long as they live, see an undamaged German city. - -To what cause will these children ascribe the defeat of the German -nation and the devastation that surrounds them? Will they attribute it -to the overwhelming weight of numbers and resources that was eventually -leagued against them? Will they point to the ingenuity of enemy -scientists? Will they perhaps blame their plight on strategic and -military blunders by their generals? - -If the Germans embrace those reasons as the true cause of their -disaster, it will be a sad and fatal thing for Germany and for the -world. Men who have never seen a German city intact will be callous -about flattening English or American or Russian cities. They may not -even realize that they are destroying anything worthwhile, for lack of a -normal sense of values. To reestablish the greatness of Germany they are -likely to pin their faith on improved military techniques. Such views -will lead the Germans straight into the arms of the Prussian militarists -to whom defeat is only a glorious opportunity to start a new war game. -“Next time it will be different.” We know all too well what that will -mean. - -This case, and others which will be tried in this building, offer a -signal opportunity to lay before the German people the true cause of -their present misery. The walls and towers and churches of Nuernberg -were, indeed, reduced to rubble by Allied bombs, but in a deeper sense -Nuernberg had been destroyed a decade earlier, when it became the seat -of the annual Nazi Party rallies, a focal point for the moral -disintegration in Germany, and the private domain of Julius Streicher. -The insane and malignant doctrines that Nuernberg spewed forth account -alike for the crimes of these defendants and for the terrible fate of -Germany under the Third Reich. - -A nation which deliberately infects itself with poison will inevitably -sicken and die. These defendants and others turned Germany into an -infernal combination of a lunatic asylum and a charnel house. Neither -science, nor industry, nor the arts could flourish in such a foul -medium. The country could not live at peace and was fatally handicapped -for war. I do not think the German people have as yet any conception of -how deeply the criminal folly that was nazism bit into every phase of -German life, or of how utterly ravaging the consequences were. It will -be our task to make these things clear. - -These are the high purposes which justify the establishment of -extraordinary courts to hear and determine this case and others of -comparable importance. That murder should be punished goes without the -saying, but the full performance of our task requires more than the just -sentencing of these defendants. Their crimes were the inevitable result -of the sinister doctrines which they espoused, and these same doctrines -sealed the fate of Germany, shattered Europe, and left the world in -ferment. Wherever those doctrines may emerge and prevail, the same -terrible consequences will follow. That is why a bold and lucid -consummation of these proceedings is of vital importance to all nations. -That is why the United States has constituted this Tribunal. - - STATE MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE THIRD REICH - -I pass now to the facts of the case in hand. There are 23 defendants in -the box. All but three of them—Rudolf Brandt, Sievers, and Brack—are -doctors. Of the 20 doctors, all but one—Pokorny—held positions in the -medical services of the Third Reich. To understand this case, it is -necessary to understand the general structure of these state medical -services, and how these services fitted into the over-all organization -of the Nazi State. - -[Illustration: Chart Showing German State Medical Services] - -To assist the Court in this regard the prosecution has prepared a short -expository brief [not introduced into evidence] which is already in the -hands of the Court and which has been made available to defense counsel -in German and English. The brief includes a glossary of the more -frequent German words or expressions which will occur in this -trial—most of them from the vocabulary of military, medical, or -governmental affairs. It also includes a table of equivalent ranks [App. -Vol. II] between the American Army and the German Army and the SS, and -of the medical ranks used in the German Armed Forces and the SS. -Finally, it includes a chart [see p. 30] showing the subordination of -the several German medical services within the general framework of the -German State. This chart has been enlarged and is displayed at the front -of the courtroom. - -Following this opening statement Mr. McHaney, in opening the -presentation of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, will offer in -evidence a series of detailed charts of the various German medical -services, which have been certified as accurate by the defendants -Handloser, Schroeder, Karl Brandt, Mrugowsky, and Brack. The chart to -which I am now directing the attention of the Tribunal is a composite -chart based upon those which Mr. McHaney will offer in evidence. The -chart in the front of the courtroom to which I now refer will not be -offered in evidence; it is intended merely as a convenient guide to the -Court and to defense counsel to enable them to follow the opening -statement and to comprehend the over-all structure of the German medical -services. - -All power in the Third Reich derived from Adolf Hitler, who was at one -and the same time the head of the government, the leader of the Nazi -Party, and the commander in chief of the armed forces. His title as head -of the government was Reich Chancellor. He was the “Fuehrer” of the Nazi -Party, and the “Supreme Commander” of the Wehrmacht. Immediately -subordinate to Hitler were the chiefs of the armed forces, the principal -cabinet ministers in the government, and the leading officials of the -Nazi Party. The only defendant in the dock who was directly responsible -to Hitler himself is the defendant Karl Brandt. - -The Court will observe that the defendants fall into three main groups. -Eight of them were members of the medical service of the German Air -Force. Seven of them were members of the medical service of the SS. The -remaining eight include the defendants Karl Brandt and Handloser, who -occupied top positions in the medical hierarchy; it included the three -defendants who are not doctors; the defendant Rostock, who was an -immediate subordinate of Karl Brandt; the defendant Blome, a medical -official of the Nazi Party; and the defendant Pokorny, whom we have -grouped under the SS for reasons which will appear later. - -I will deal first with the military side of the case. Hitler, as Supreme -Commander of the German Armed Forces, exercised his authority through a -staff called the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, better known by -its German initials, OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht). The chief of this -staff, throughout the period with which this case will concern itself, -was Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. - -Under the OKW came the High Commands of the three branches of the -Wehrmacht: the Navy (OKM), the Army (OKH) and the Air Force (OKL). Grand -Admiral Erich Raeder was the Commander in Chief of the German Navy until -1943, when he was succeeded by Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz. Prior to the -outbreak of the war, the Commander in Chief of the German Army was Field -Marshal von Brauchitsch. In December 1941 Brauchitsch was relieved and -Hitler himself took this position. Hermann Goering was the Commander in -Chief of the German Air Force with the rank of Reich Marshal, until the -very last month of the war. - -Each of the three branches of the Wehrmacht had its own medical service. -For purposes of this case, the medical service of the Navy is not of -much importance. During most of the war the defendant Handloser was the -Chief of the Medical Service of the German Army; in 1944 he was -succeeded in this capacity by Dr. Walter. The Chief of the Medical -Service of the German Air Force until 1943 was Dr. Erich Hippke; from -January 1944 until the end of the war, it was the defendant Schroeder. -Subordinate to the defendant Schroeder are seven other defendants from -the Air Force Medical Service, whose functions I will briefly describe -later on. - -I turn now to the second principal group of defendants—those affiliated -with the SS. The SS was nominally a part of the Nazi Party, and came -under Hitler in his capacity as Fuehrer of the NSDAP. In fact, during -the years of the Nazi regime, the SS expanded into a vast complex of -military, police, and intelligence organizations. The head of this -extraordinary combine was Heinrich Himmler, with the title of Reich -Leader SS. The SS had its own medical service, headed by Grawitz, who -bore the title Reich Physician SS. - -The SS in turn was divided into many departments, of which one of the -most important was the Armed or Waffen SS. The members of the Waffen SS -were trained and equipped as regular troops, were formed into regular -military formations, and fought at the front side by side with the -troops of the Wehrmacht. By the end of the war there were some 30 SS -divisions in the line. The head of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS -was the defendant Genzken. - -Six other defendants were members of the SS Medical Service and -therefore subordinated to Grawitz. - -The German civilian medical services derived their authority both from -the German Government and from the Party. The medical chief on the -civilian side was Dr. Leonardo Conti, who committed suicide in October -1945. Dr. Conti occupied the position of State Secretary for Health in -the Reich Ministry of the Interior. In this capacity Conti was a -subordinate of the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Wilhelm Frick, until -1943, and thereafter to Heinrich Himmler who assumed the additional -duties of Minister of the Interior in that year. - -Conti also held the title in the Nazi Party of Reich Health Leader. His -deputy in this capacity was the defendant Blome. As Reich Health Leader, -Conti was subordinate to the Nazi Party Chancellery, the chief of which -was Martin Bormann. - -As the Court will see from the chart,[8] the three principal people in -the hierarchy of German state health and medicine are the defendants -Karl Brandt and Handloser, and the deceased Dr. Conti. In July 1942, -Hitler issued a decree, a copy of which will later be read before the -Court, which established the defendant Handloser as Chief of the Medical -Services of the Wehrmacht. Shown on the chart here Handloser’s name -appears in this capacity. Handloser was given supervisory and -professional authority over the medical services of all three branches -of the Wehrmacht. Inasmuch as the Waffen SS came to constitute an -important part of the armed forces, Handloser’s supervisory authority -also extended to the defendant Genzken, Chief of the Medical Service of -the Waffen SS. In this position Handloser was charged with the -coordination of all common tasks of the Medical Services of the -Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS. He thus became the principal figure in -German military medicine, just as Dr. Conti was the central figure in -the field of civilian medicine. - -Handloser and Conti, as will be seen from the chart, were not directly -responsible to Hitler himself. Handloser’s responsibility ran to Hitler -through the OKW, and Conti’s through the Ministry of the Interior and -the chief of the Nazi Party Chancellery. - -In 1942 Hitler for the first time established a medical and health -official under his direct control. This official was the defendant Karl -Brandt. A Hitler decree of July 1942 (_NO-080_) gave Brandt the title -Plenipotentiary for Health and Medical Services, and empowered him to -carry out special tasks and negotiations with reference to the -requirements for doctors, hospitals, medical supplies, etc., between the -military and civilian sectors of the health and sanitation systems. -Brandt’s role, therefore, was to coordinate the requirements of the -military and civilian agencies in the field of medicine and public -health. - -Dr. Karl Brandt had been the personal physician to Hitler since 1934. He -was only 38 years old at the time he assumed the important duties -conferred by the 1942 decree. His rise continued. - -In September 1943 Hitler issued another decree which gave Brandt the -title of General Commissioner for Sanitation and Health and empowered -him to coordinate and direct the problems and activities of the entire -administration for sanitation and health. (_NO-081._) This authority was -explicitly extended to the field of medical science and research. - -Finally, in August 1944, Hitler appointed Dr. Brandt Reich Commissioner -for Sanitation and Health, and stated that in this capacity Brandt’s -office ranked as the “highest Reich authority.” (_NO-082._) Brandt was -authorized to issue instructions to the medical offices and -organizations of the government, to the party, and the armed forces, in -the field of sanitation and health. - -Karl Brandt, as the supreme medical authority in the Reich, appointed -the defendant Paul Rostock as his immediate subordinate to head the -Office for Scientific and Medical Research. Rostock’s position reached -into the activities of the medical societies, the medical colleges, and -the Reich Research Council. Brandt also appointed Admiral Fikentscher, -who had theretofore been the chief medical officer of the German Navy, -as his subordinate to head the Office for Planning and Production. In -this field, Fikentscher dealt with the principal labor authorities, the -Ministry of Economics, and the Ministry for Armament and War Production. - -As chief of the Medical Service of the German Air Force, the defendant -Schroeder also held one of the most important positions in the German -medical hierarchy. He and the defendant Handloser both held the rank of -Generaloberstabsarzt, the highest rank in the German medical service and -the equivalent of lieutenant general in the American Army. I do not -propose to go into detail concerning the positions held by the seven -defendants who were under Schroeder, inasmuch as Mr. McHaney will -introduce charts which show in great detail the structure of the German -Air Force Medical Service, and which have been authenticated by the -defendant Schroeder himself. The defendant Rose held a high rank in the -Air Force Medical Service equivalent to that of a brigadier general in -the American Army and was appointed special adviser to Schroeder on -matters pertaining to tropical medicine, held a chair at one of the most -important German medical institutes, and is one of the most -distinguished scientists in the dock. The defendant Becker-Freyseng -headed Schroeder’s department for aviation medicine. The defendant Weltz -was chief of the Institute for Aviation Medicine at Munich. The -particular functions of the defendants Ruff, Romberg, Schaefer, and -Beiglboeck will appear as we proceed with the presentation of the -evidence. - -I will likewise pass over very briefly the detailed functions of the six -SS physicians who were shown on the chart as the subordinates of -Grawitz. Detailed charts of the SS Medical Service, authenticated by the -defendant Mrugowsky, will shortly be introduced in evidence. The -defendant Gebhardt was Himmler’s personal physician and he held a rank -in the SS equivalent to that of a major general in the American Army. He -became the president of the German Red Cross. He was the chief surgeon -on Grawitz’s staff, and also headed the hospital at Hohenlychen, in -which capacity the defendants Oberheuser and Fischer were his -assistants. The defendant Poppendick was the chief of Grawitz’s personal -staff. The defendant Mrugowsky was Grawitz’s chief hygienist and also -headed the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS. The defendant Hoven was -the chief doctor of the Buchenwald concentration camp. - -The defendant Pokorny is a private physician who had no official -connection with the governmental medical service. We have shown him on -the chart underneath the group of SS physicians for reasons which will -appear in the course of presenting the evidence concerning sterilization -experiments (par. 6 (I) of the indictment). - -The three defendants who are not doctors are shown in the top right-hand -corner of the chart. Two of them—Rudolf Brandt and Brack—are -administrative officers. Rudolf Brandt had the rank of colonel in the -SS, was sort of personal adjutant, and held an administrative office -both in the SS and the Ministry of the Interior. Viktor Brack was the -chief administrative officer in Hitler’s personal chancellery -[Chancellery of the Fuehrer], the head of which was Philipp Bouhler. - -The defendant Sievers, who held the rank of colonel in the SS, is a -special case. He was a direct subordinate of Heinrich Himmler in the -latter’s capacity as president of the so-called Ahnenerbe Society. The -name of this society literally means “ancestral heritage”, and it was -originally devoted to scientific and psuedo-scientific researches -concerning the anthropological and cultural history of the German race. -Later on an Institute for Military Scientific Research was set up within -the Ahnenerbe Society. Sievers was the manager of the society and the -director of the Institute for Military Scientific Research. - -This concludes the general description of the German state medical -services under the Nazi regime, and of the positions which the -defendants occupied in the scheme of things. It is convenient at this -point to refer to count four of the indictment, which charges that 10 of -the defendants were members of an organization declared to be criminal -by the International Military Tribunal, and that such membership is in -violation of paragraph 1 (_d_) of Article II of Control Council Law No. -10. The organization in question is the SS. - -This count concerns the defendant Karl Brandt, six of the defendants who -were affiliated with the Medical Service of the SS, and three defendants -who are not doctors. It does not concern any of the nine defendants on -the military side, nor the defendants Rostock, Blome, Oberheuser, or -Pokorny. - -The International Military Tribunal’s declaration of criminality applies -to all persons who had been officially accepted as members of any branch -of the SS, and who remained members after 1 September 1939. The -prosecution will show that all 10 defendants charged in count four were -officially accepted as members of the SS and remained so after that -date. The defendants Karl Brandt, Genzken, and Gebhardt held ranks in -both the General or Allgemeine SS and the Waffen SS equivalent to that -of a major general in the American Army. The defendants Mrugowsky, -Hoven, Poppendick, and Fischer all held officer rank in the SS or Waffen -SS, and all four of them, together with the defendants Genzken and -Gebhardt, held positions in the SS Medical Service. The defendant Rudolf -Brandt held the rank of colonel in the General (Allgemeine) SS, and was -a personal assistant to Himmler in Himmler’s capacity as Reich Leader -SS. The defendant Brack held officer rank in both the SS and the Waffen -SS. The defendant Sievers held the rank of colonel in the SS, and was -manager of the Ahnenerbe Society, which was attached to the SS Main -Office. - -The declaration of criminality by the International Military Tribunal -does not apply when it appears that a member of the SS was drafted into -membership in such a way as to give him no choice in the matter. Nor -does it apply if it appears that the member had no knowledge that the -organization was being used for the commission of criminal acts. For -purposes of this case, these questions, the prosecution believes, will -be academic. All of the defendants charged in count four held officer -rank in the SS, and most of them held senior rank. They were moving -spirits and personal participants in murder and torture on a large -scale, and in a variety of other crimes. In this connection we -respectfully invite the Tribunal’s attention to two statements by the -International Military Tribunal which, under Article X of Ordinance No. -7, constitute proof in the absence of substantial new evidence to the -contrary. In setting forth the criminal acts committed by the SS, the -International Military Tribunal stated:[9] - - “Also attached to the SS main offices was a research foundation - known as the Experiments Ahnenerbe. The scientists attached to - this organization are stated to have been mainly honorary - members of the SS. During the war an institute for military - scientific research became attached to the Ahnenerbe which - conducted extensive experiments involving the use of living - human beings.” - -And again it was stated:[10] - - “In connection with the administration of the concentration - camps, the SS embarked on a series of experiments on human - beings which were performed on prisoners of war or concentration - camp inmates. These experiments included freezing to death and - killing by poison bullets. The SS was able to obtain an - allocation of Government funds for this kind of research on the - grounds that they had access to human material not available to - other agencies.” - - CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE GUISE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH - - (Counts two and three, pars. 6, 7, 11, and 12) - -I turn now to the main part of the indictment and will outline at this -point the prosecution’s case relating to those crimes alleged to have -been committed in the name of medical or scientific research. The -charges with respect to “euthanasia” and the slaughter of tubercular -Poles obviously have no relation to research or experimentation and will -be dealt with later. What I will cover now comprehends all the -experiments charged as war crimes in paragraph 6 and as crimes against -humanity in paragraph 11 of the indictment, and the murders committed -for so-called anthropological purposes which are charged as war crimes -in paragraph 7 and as crimes against humanity in paragraph 12 of the -indictment. - -Before taking up these experiments one by one, let us look at them as a -whole. Are they a heterogeneous list of horrors, or is there a common -denominator for the whole group? - -A sort of rough pattern is apparent on the face of the indictment. -Experiments concerning high altitude, the effect of cold, and the -potability of processed sea-water have an obvious relation to -aeronautical and naval combat and rescue problems. The mustard gas and -phosphorous burn experiments, as well as those relating to the healing -value of sulfanilamide for wounds, can be related to air-raid and -battlefield medical problems. It is well known that malaria, epidemic -jaundice, and typhus were among the principal diseases which had to be -combated by the German Armed Forces and by German authorities in -occupied territories. - -To some degree, the therapeutic pattern outlined above is undoubtedly a -valid one, and explains why the Wehrmacht, and especially the German Air -Force, participated in these experiments. Fanatically bent upon -conquest, utterly ruthless as to the means or instruments to be used in -achieving victory, and callous to the sufferings of people whom they -regarded as inferior, the German militarists were willing to gather -whatever scientific fruit these experiments might yield. - -But our proof will show that a quite different and even more sinister -objective runs like a red thread through these hideous researches. We -will show that in some instances the true object of these experiments -was not how to rescue or to cure, but how to destroy and kill. The -sterilization experiments were, it is clear, purely destructive in -purpose. The prisoners at Buchenwald who were shot with poisoned bullets -were not guinea pigs to test an antidote for the poison; their murderers -really wanted to know how quickly the poison would kill. This -destructive objective is not superficially as apparent in the other -experiments, but we will show that it was often there. - -Mankind has not heretofore felt the need of a word to denominate the -science of how to kill prisoners most rapidly and subjugated people in -large numbers. This case and these defendants have created this gruesome -question for the lexicographer. For the moment we will christen this -macabre science “thanatology,” the science of producing death. The -thanatological knowledge, derived in part from these experiments, -supplied the techniques for genocide, a policy of the Third Reich, -exemplified in the “euthanasia” program and in the wide-spread slaughter -of Jews, gypsies, Poles, and Russians. This policy of mass extermination -could not have been so effectively carried out without the active -participation of German medical scientists. - -I will now take up the experiments themselves. Two or three of them I -will describe more fully, but most of them will be treated in summary -fashion, as Mr. McHaney will be presenting detailed proof of each of -them. - - A. High-Altitude Experiments - -The experiments known as “high-altitude” or “low-pressure” experiments -were carried out at the Dachau concentration camp in 1942. According to -the proof, the original proposal that such experiments be carried out on -human beings originated in the spring of 1941 with a Dr. Sigmund -Rascher. Rascher was at that time a captain in the medical service of -the German Air Force, and also held officer rank in the SS. He is -believed now to be dead. - -The origin of the idea is revealed in a letter which Rascher wrote to -Himmler in May 1941 at which time Rascher was taking a course in -aviation medicine at a German Air Force headquarters in Munich. -According to the letter, this course included researches into -high-altitude flying and - -“considerable regret was expressed at the fact that no tests with human -material had yet been possible for us, as such experiments are very -dangerous and nobody volunteers for them.” (_1602-PS._) - -Rascher, in this letter, went on to ask Himmler to put human subjects at -his disposal and baldly stated that the experiments might result in -death to the subjects but that the tests theretofore made with monkeys -had not been satisfactory. - -Rascher’s letter was answered by Himmler’s adjutant, the defendant, -Rudolf Brandt, who informed Rascher that— - -“* * * Prisoners will, of course, gladly be made available for the -high-flight researches.” (_1582-PS._) - -Subsequently Rascher wrote directly to Rudolf Brandt asking for -permission to carry out the experiments at the Dachau concentration -camp, and he mentioned that the German Air Force had provided “a movable -pressure chamber” in which the experiments might be made. Plans for -carrying out the experiments were developed at a conference late in -1941, or early in 1942, attended by Dr. Rascher and by the defendants -Weltz, Romberg, and Ruff, all of whom were members of the German Air -Force Medical Service. The tests themselves were carried out in the -spring and summer of 1942, using the pressure chamber which the German -Air Force had provided. The victims were locked in the low-pressure -chamber, which was an airtight ball-like compartment, and then the -pressure in the chamber was altered to simulate the atmospheric -conditions prevailing at extremely high altitudes. The pressure in the -chamber could be varied with great rapidity, which permitted the -defendants to duplicate the atmospheric conditions which an aviator -might encounter in falling great distances through space without a -parachute and without oxygen. - -The reports, conclusions, and comments on these experiments, which were -introduced here and carefully recorded, demonstrate complete disregard -for human life and callousness to suffering and pain. These documents -reveal at one and the same time the medical results of the experiments, -and the degradation of the physicians who performed them. The first -report by Rascher was made in April 1942, and contains a description of -the effect of the low-pressure chamber on a 37-year-old Jew. -(_1971-A-PS._) I quote: - - “The third experiment of this type took such an extraordinary - course that I called an SS physician of the camp as witness, - since I had worked on these experiments all by myself. It was a - continuous experiment without oxygen at a height of 12 - kilometers conducted on a 37-year-old Jew in good general - condition. Breathing continued up to 30 minutes. After 4 minutes - the experimental subject began to perspire and wiggle his head, - after 5 minutes cramps occurred, between 6 and 10 minutes - breathing increased in speed and the experimental subject became - unconscious; from 11 to 30 minutes breathing slowed down to - three breaths per minute, finally stopping altogether. - - “Severest cyanosis developed in between and foam appeared at the - mouth. - - “At 5 minute intervals electrocardiograms from three leads were - written. After breathing had stopped Ekg (electrocardiogram) was - continuously written until the action of the heart had come to a - complete standstill. About ½ hour after breathing had stopped, - dissection was started.” - -Rascher’s report also contains the following record of the “autopsy”: - - “When the cavity of the chest was opened the pericardium was - filled tightly (heart tamponade). Upon opening of the - pericardium, 80 cc. of clear yellowish liquid gushed forth. The - moment the tamponade had stopped, the right auricle of the heart - began to beat heavily, at first at the rate of 60 actions per - minute, then progressively slower. Twenty minutes after the - pericardium had been opened, the right auricle was opened by - puncturing it. For about 15 minutes, a thin stream of blood - spurted forth. Thereafter, clogging of the puncture wound in the - auricle by coagulation of the blood and renewed acceleration of - the action of the right auricle occurred. - - “One hour after breathing had stopped, the spinal marrow was - completely severed and the brain removed. Thereupon, the action - of the auricle of the heart stopped for 40 seconds. It then - renewed its action, coming to a complete standstill 8 minutes - later. A heavy subarachnoid oedema was found in the brain. In - the veins and arteries of the brain, a considerable quantity of - air was discovered. Furthermore, the blood vessels in the heart - and liver were enormously obstructed by embolism.” - (_1971-A-PS._) - -After seeing this report Himmler ironically ordered that if a subject -should be brought back to life after enduring such an experiment, he -should be “pardoned” to life imprisonment in a concentration camp. -Rascher’s reply to this letter, dated 20 October 1942, reveals that up -to the time the victims of these experiments had all been Poles and -Russians, that some of them had been condemned to death, and Rascher -inquired whether Himmler’s benign mercy extended to Poles and Russians. -(_1971-D-PS._) A teleptyped reply from the defendant, Rudolf Brandt, -confirmed Rascher’s belief that Poles and Russians were beyond the pale -and should be given no amnesty of any kind. (_1971-E-PS._) - -The utter brutality of the crimes committed in conducting this series of -experiments is reflected in all the documents. A report written in May -1942 reflects that certain of these tests were carried out on persons -described therein as “Jewish professional criminals.” In fact, these -Jews had been condemned for what the Nazis called “Rassenschande,” which -literally means “racial shame.” The crime consisted of marriage or -intercourse between Aryans and non-Aryans. The murder and torture of -these unfortunate Jews is eloquently reflected in the following report: - - “Some of the experimental subjects died during a continued - high-altitude experiment; for instance, after one-half hour at a - height of 12 kilometers. After the skull had been opened under - water, an ample amount of air embolism was found in the brain - vessels and, in part, free air in the brain ventricles. - - “In order to find out whether the severe psychic and physical - effects, as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of - embolism, the following was done: After relative recuperation - from such a parachute descending test had taken place, however - before regaining consciousness, some experimental subjects were - kept under water until they died. When the skull and cavities of - the breast and of the abdomen were opened under water, an - enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels of the - brain, the coronary vessels, and the vessels of the liver and - the intestines.” (_NO-220._) - -The victims who did not die in the course of such experiments, surely -wished that they had. A long report written in July 1942 by Rascher, and -by the defendants Ruff and Romberg, describes an experiment on a former -delicatessen clerk, who was given an oxygen mask and raised in the -chamber to an atmospheric elevation of over 47,000 feet, at which point -the mask was removed and a parachute descent was simulated. The report -describes the victim’s reactions—“spasmodic convulsions,” “agonal -convulsive breathing,” “clonic convulsions, groaning,” “yells aloud,” -“convulses arms and legs,” “grimaces, bites his tongue,” “does not -respond to speech,” “gives the impression of someone who is completely -out of his mind.” (_NO-402._) - -The evidence which we will produce will establish that the defendants -Ruff and Romberg personally participated with Rascher in experiments -resulting in death and torture; that the defendant Sievers watched the -experiments for an entire day and made an oral report to Himmler on his -observations; that the defendant Rudolf Brandt was the agent of Himmler -in providing the human subjects for these experiments and in making many -other facilities available to Rascher and rendering him general -assistance; and that the defendant Weltz, in his official capacity, -repeatedly insisted on supervision over and full responsibility and -credit for the experiments. The higher authorities of both the German -Air Force and the SS were fully informed concerning what was going on. -Extensive correspondence will be introduced, for example, concerning the -availability of the low-pressure chamber which the German Air Force -furnished at Dachau, and concerning the availability of Rascher, who was -an officer in the Air Force Medical Service, to conduct the experiments. -Knowledge of, participation in, and responsibility for these atrocious -crimes on the part of the defendants here charged will be clearly shown -by the evidence. - - B. Freezing Experiments - -The deep interest of the German Air Force in capitalizing on the -availability of inmates of concentration camps for experimental purposes -is even more apparent in the case of the freezing experiments. These, -too, were conducted at Dachau. They began immediately after the -high-altitude experiments were completed and they continued until the -spring of 1943. Here again, the defendant Weltz was directly in charge -of the experiments, with Rascher as his assistant, as is shown in a -letter written in May 1942 by Field Marshal Erhard Milch, the Inspector -General of the German Air Force, to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, one of -Heinrich Himmler’s principal subordinates, and this letter specifically -requested that the freezing experiments be carried out at Dachau under -Weltz’s supervision. (_343-A-PS._) - -The purpose of these experiments was to determine the most effective way -of rewarming German aviators who were forced to parachute into the North -Sea. The evidence will show that in the course of these experiments, the -victims were forced to remain outdoors without clothing in freezing -weather from 9 to 14 hours. In other cases, they were forced to remain -in a tank of iced water for 3 hours at a time. The water experiments are -described in a report by Rascher written in August 1942. (_1618-PS._) I -quote: - - “Electrical measurements gave low temperature readings of 26.4° - in the stomach and 26.5° in the rectum. Fatalities occurred only - when the brain stem and the back of the head were also chilled. - Autopsies of such fatal cases always revealed large amounts of - free blood, up to ½ liter, in the cranial cavity. The heart - invariably showed extreme dilation of the right chamber. As soon - as the temperature in those experiments reached 28°, the - experimental subjects died invariably, despite all attempts at - resuscitation.” - -Other documents set forth that from time to time the temperature of the -water would be lowered by 10° Centigrade and a quart of blood would be -taken from an artery in the subject’s throat for analysis. The organs of -the victims who died were extracted and sent to the Pathological -Institute at Munich. - -Rewarming of the subjects was attempted by various means, most commonly -and successfully in a very hot bath. In September, Himmler personally -ordered that rewarming by the warmth of human bodies also be attempted, -and the inhuman villains who conducted these experiments promptly -produced four gypsy women from the Ravensbrueck concentration camp. When -the women had arrived, rewarming was attempted by placing the chilled -victim between two naked women. - -A voluminous report on the freezing experiments conducted in tanks of -ice water, written in October 1942, contains the following (_NO-428_): - - “If the experimental subject were placed in the water under - narcosis, one observed a certain arousing effect. The subject - began to groan and made some defensive movements. In a few - cases, a state of excitation developed. This was especially - severe in the cooling of the head and neck. But never was a - complete cessation of the narcosis observed. The defensive - movements ceased after about 5 minutes. There followed a - progressive rigor, which developed especially strongly in the - arm musculature; the arms were strongly flexed and pressed to - the body. The rigor increased with the continuation of the - cooling, now and then interrupted by tonic-clonic twitching. - With still more marked sinking of the body temperature, it - suddenly ceased. These cases ended fatally, without any - successful results from resuscitation efforts. - - * * * * * - - “Experiments without narcosis showed no essential differences in - the course of cooling. Upon entry into the water, a severe cold - shuddering appeared. The cooling of the neck and back of the - head was felt as especially painful, but already after 5 to 10 - minutes, a significant weakening of the pain sensation was - observable. Rigor developed after this time in the same manner - as under narcosis, likewise the tonic-clonic twitchings. At this - point, speech became difficult because the rigor also affected - the speech musculature. - - “Simultaneously with the rigor, a severe difficulty in breathing - set in with or without narcosis. It was reported that, so to - speak, an iron ring was placed about the chest. Objectively, - already at the beginning of this breathing difficulty, a marked - dilatation of the nostrils occurred. The expiration was - prolonged and visibly difficult. This difficulty passed over - into a rattling and snoring breathing. * * *” [Emphasis not - shown.] - -During the winter of 1942 and 1943, experiments with “dry” cold were -conducted. And Rascher reported on these in another letter to Himmler -(_1616-PS_): - - “Up to now, I have cooled off about 30 people stripped in the - open air during nine to fourteen hours at 27° to 29°. After a - time, corresponding to a trip of 1 hour, I put these subjects in - a hot bath. Up to now, every single patient was completely - warmed up within 1 hour at most, although some of them had their - hands and feet frozen white.” - -The responsibility among the defendants for the freezing experiments is -substantially the same as for the high-altitude tests. The results were, -if anything, ever more widely known in German medical circles. In -October 1942, a medical conference took place here in Nuernberg at the -Deutscher Hof Hotel, at which one of the authors of the report from -which I have just quoted spoke on the subject “Prevention and Treatment -of Freezing”, and the defendant Weltz spoke on the subject “Warming up -after Freezing to the Danger Point.” Numerous documents which we will -introduce show the widespread responsibility among the defendants, and -in the highest quarters of the German Air Force, for these sickening -crimes. - - C. Malaria Experiments - -Another series of experiments carried out at the Dachau concentration -camp concerned immunization for and treatment of malaria. Over 1,200 -inmates of practically every nationality were experimented upon. Many -persons who participated in these experiments have already been tried -before a general military court held at Dachau, and the findings of that -court will be laid before this Tribunal. The malaria experiments were -carried out under the general supervision of a Dr. Schilling, with whom -the defendant Sievers and others in the box collaborated. The evidence -will show that healthy persons were infected by mosquitoes or by -injections from the glands of mosquitoes. Catholic priests were among -the subjects. The defendant Gebhardt kept Himmler informed of the -progress of these experiments. Rose furnished Schilling with fly eggs -for them, and others of the defendants participated in various ways -which the evidence will demonstrate. - -After the victims had been infected, they were variously treated with -quinine, neosalvarsan, pyramidon, antipyrin, and several combinations of -these drugs. Many deaths occurred from excessive doses of neosalvarsan -and pyramidon. According to the findings of the Dachau court, malaria -was the direct cause of 30 deaths and 300 to 400 others died as the -result of subsequent complications. - - D. Mustard Gas Experiments - -The experiments concerning mustard gas were conducted at Sachsenhausen, -Natzweiler, and other concentration camps and extended over the entire -period of the war. Wounds were deliberately inflicted on the victims, -and the wounds were then infected with mustard gas. Other subjects were -forced to inhale the gas, or to take it internally in liquid form, and -still others were injected with the gas. A report on these experiments -written at the end of 1939 described certain cases in which wounds were -inflicted on both arms of the human guinea pigs and then infected, and -the report states: “The arms in most of the cases are badly swollen and -pains are enormous.” - -The alleged purpose of these experiments was to discover an effective -treatment for the burns caused by mustard gas. In 1944 the experiments -were coordinated with a general program for research into gas warfare. A -decree issued by Hitler in March 1944 ordered the defendant Karl Brandt -to push medical research in connection with gas warfare. The defendant -Rudolf Brandt sent copies of this decree to the defendant Sievers, to -Grawitz, and others, and transmitted Hitler’s request that they confer -soon with the defendant Karl Brandt “on account of the urgency of the -order given him by the Fuehrer.” Subsequently, Sievers, who was -thoroughly familiar with the mustard gas experiments being carried on in -the concentration camps, reported the details of these experiments to -the defendant Karl Brandt. - - E. and F. Ravensbrueck Experiments Concerning Sulfanilamide and Other - Drugs; Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation - -The experiments conducted principally on the female inmates of -Ravensbrueck concentration camp were perhaps the most barbaric of all. -These concerned bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration and bone -transplantation, and experiments with sulfanilamide and other drugs. -They were carried out by the defendants Fischer and Oberheuser under the -direction of the defendant Gebhardt. - -In one set of experiments, incisions were made on the legs of several of -the camp inmates for the purpose of simulating battle-caused infections. -A bacterial culture, or fragments of wood shavings, or tiny pieces of -glass were forced into the wound. After several days, the wounds were -treated with sulfanilamide. Grawitz, the head of the SS Medical Service, -visited Ravensbrueck and received a report on these experiments directly -from the defendant Fischer. Grawitz thereupon directed that the wounds -inflicted on the subjects should be even more severe so that conditions -similar to those prevailing at the front lines would be more completely -simulated. - -Bullet wounds were simulated on the subjects by tying off the blood -vessels at both ends of the incision. A gangrene-producing culture was -then placed in the wounds. Severe infection resulted within 24 hours. -Operations were then performed on the infected areas and the wounds were -treated with sulfanilamide. In each of the many sulfanilamide -experiments, some of the subjects were wounded and infected but were not -given sulfanilamide, so as to compare their reactions with those who -received treatment. - -Bone transplantation from one person to another and the regeneration of -nerves, muscles, and bones were also tried out on the women at -Ravensbrueck. The defendant Gebhardt personally ordered that bone -transplantation experiments be carried out, and in one case the scapula -of an inmate at Ravensbrueck was removed and taken to Hohenlychen -Hospital and there transplanted. We will show that the defendants did -not even have any substantial scientific objective. These experiments -were senseless, sadistic, and utterly savage. - -The defendant Oberheuser’s duties at Ravensbrueck in connection with the -experiments were to select young and healthy inmates for the -experiments, to be present at all of the surgical operations, and to -give the experimental subjects post-operative care. We will show that -this care consisted chiefly of utter neglect of nursing requirements, -and cruel and abusive treatment of the miserable victims. - -Other experiments in this category were conducted at Dachau to discover -a method of bringing about coagulation of the blood. Concentration camp -inmates were actually fired upon, or were injured in some other fashion -in order to cause something similar to a battlefield wound. These wounds -were then treated with a drug known as polygal in order to test its -capacity to coagulate the blood. Several inmates were killed. -Sulfanilamide was also administered to some and withheld from other -inmates who had been infected with the pus from a phlegmon-diseased -person. Blood poisoning generally ensued. After infection, the victims -were left untreated for 3 or 4 days, after which various drugs were -administered experimentally or experimental surgical operations were -performed. Polish Catholic priests were used for these tests. Many died -and others became invalids. - -As a result of all of these senseless and barbaric experiments, the -defendants are responsible for manifold murders and untold cruelty and -torture. - - G. Sea-Water Experiments - -For the sea-water experiments we return to Dachau. They were conducted -in 1944 at the behest of the German Air Force and the German Navy in -order to develop a method of rendering sea-water drinkable. Meetings to -discuss this problem were held in May 1944, attended by representatives -of the Luftwaffe, the Navy, and I. G. Farben. The defendants -Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer were among the participants. It was agreed -to conduct a series of experiments in which the subjects, fed only with -shipwreck emergency rations, would be divided into four groups. One -group would receive no water at all; the second would drink ordinary -sea-water; the third would drink sea-water processed by the so-called -“Berka” method, which concealed the taste but did not alter the saline -content; the fourth would drink sea-water treated so as to remove the -salt. - -Since it was expected that the subjects would die, or at least suffer -severe impairment of health, it was decided at the meeting in May 1944 -that only persons furnished by Himmler could be used. Thereafter in June -1944 the defendant Schroeder set the program in motion by writing to -Himmler, and I quote from his letter (_NO-185_): - - “Earlier you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to settle urgent - medical matters through experiments on human beings. Today I - again stand before a decision which, after numerous experiments - on animals and also on voluntary human subjects, demands final - solution: The Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods - for making sea-water drinkable. The one method, developed by a - medical officer, removes the salt from the sea-water and - transforms it into real drinking water; the second method, - suggested by an engineer, only removes the unpleasant taste from - the sea-water. The latter method, in contrast to the first, - requires no critical raw material. From the medical point of - view this method must be viewed critically, as the - administration of concentrated salt solutions can produce severe - symptoms of poisoning. - - “As the experiments on human beings could thus far only be - carried out for a period of 4 days, and as practical demands - require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12 - days, appropriate experiments are necessary. - - “Required are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available - for 4 whole weeks. As it is known from previous experiments that - necessary laboratories exist in the Dachau concentration camp, - this camp would be very suitable. - - * * * * * - - “Due to the enormous importance which a solution of this - question has for soldiers of the Luftwaffe and Navy who have - become shipwrecked, I would be greatly obliged to you, my dear - Reich Minister, if you would decide to comply with my request.” - -Himmler passed this letter to Grawitz who consulted Gebhardt and other -SS officials. A typical and nauseating Nazi discussion of racial -questions ensued. One SS man suggested using quarantined prisoners and -Jews; another suggested gypsies. Grawitz doubted that experiments on -gypsies would yield results which were scientifically applicable to -Germans. Himmler finally directed that gypsies be used with three others -as a check. - -The tests were actually begun in July 1944. The defendant Beiglboeck -supervised the experiments, in the course of which the gypsy subjects -underwent terrible suffering, became delirious or developed convulsions, -and some died. - - H. Epidemic Jaundice - -The epidemic jaundice experiments, which took place at Sachsenhausen and -Natzweiler concentration camps, were instigated by the defendant Karl -Brandt. A letter written in 1943 by Grawitz stresses the enormous -military importance of developing an inoculation against epidemic -jaundice, which had spread extensively in the Waffen SS and the German -Army, particularly in southern Russia. In some companies, up to 60 -percent casualties from epidemic jaundice had occurred. Grawitz further -informed Himmler that, and I quote: - - “The General Commissioner of the Fuehrer, SS Brigadefuehrer - Professor Dr. Brandt, has approached me with the request to help - him obtain prisoners to be used in connection with his research - on the causes of Epidemic Jaundice which has been furthered to a - large degree by his efforts. * * * In order to enlarge our - knowledge, so far based only on inoculation of animals with - germs taken from human beings, it would not be necessary to - reverse the procedure and inoculate human beings with germs - cultivated in animals. Casualties (Todesfaelle) must be - anticipated.” - -Grawitz also had been doing research: on this problem with the -assistance of a Dr. Dohmen, a medical officer attached to the Army -Medical Inspectorate. Himmler made the following reply to the Grawitz -letter (_NO-011_): - - “I approve that eight criminals condemned in Auschwitz (eight - Jews of the Polish Resistance Movement condemned to death) - should be used for these experiments.” - -Other evidence will indicate that the scope of these experiments was -subsequently enlarged and that murder, torture, and death resulted from -them. - - I. Sterilization Experiments - -In the sterilization experiments conducted by the defendants at -Auschwitz, Ravensbrueck, and other concentration camps, the destructive -nature of the Nazi medical program comes out most forcibly. The Nazis -were searching for methods of extermination, both by murder and -sterilization, of large population groups, by the most scientific and -least conspicuous means. They were developing a new branch of medical -science which would give them the scientific tools for the planning and -practice of genocide. The primary purpose was to discover an -inexpensive, unobtrusive, and rapid method of sterilization which could -be used to wipe out Russians, Poles, Jews, and other people. Surgical -sterilization was thought to be too slow and expensive to be used on a -mass scale. A method to bring about an unnoticed sterilization was -thought desirable. - -Medicinal sterilizations were therefore carried out. A Dr. Madaus had -stated that caladium seguinum, a drug obtained from a North American -plant, if taken orally or by injection, would bring about sterilization. -In 1941 the defendant Pokorny called this to Himmler’s attention, and -suggested that it should be developed and used against Russian prisoners -of war. I quote one paragraph from Pokorny’s letter written at that time -(_NO-035_): - - “If, on the basis of this research, it were possible to produce - a drug which after a relatively short time, effects an - imperceptible sterilization on human beings, then we would have - a powerful new weapon at our disposal. The thought alone that - the 3 million Bolsheviks, who are at present German prisoners, - could be sterilized so that they could be used as laborers but - be prevented from reproduction, opens the most far-reaching - perspectives.” - -As a result of Pokorny’s suggestion, experiments were conducted on -concentration camp inmates to test the effectiveness of the drug. At the -same time efforts were made to grow the plant on a large scale in -hothouses. - -At the Auschwitz concentration camp sterilization experiments were also -conducted on a large scale by a Dr. Karl Clauberg, who had developed a -method of sterilizing women, based on the injection of an irritating -solution. Several thousand Jewesses and gypsies were sterilized at -Auschwitz by this method. - -Conversely, surgical operations were performed on sexually abnormal -inmates at Buchenwald in order to determine whether their virility could -be increased by the transplantation of glands. Out of 14 subjects of -these experiments, at least 2 died. - -The defendant Gebhardt also personally conducted sterilizations at -Ravensbrueck by surgical operation. The defendant Viktor Brack, in March -1941, submitted to Himmler a report on the progress and state of X-ray -sterilization experiments. Brack explained that it had been determined -that sterilization with powerful X-rays could be accomplished and that -castration would then result. The danger of this X-ray method lay in the -fact that other parts of the body, if they were not protected with lead, -were also seriously affected. In order to prevent the victims from -realizing that they were being castrated, Brack made the following -fantastic suggestion in his letter written in 1941 to Himmler, from -which I quote (_NO-203_): - - “One way to carry out these experiments in practice would be to - have those people who are to be treated line up before a - counter. There they would be questioned and a form would be - given them to be filled out, the whole process taking 2 or 3 - minutes. The official attendant who sits behind the counter can - operate the apparatus in such a manner that he works a switch - which will start both tubes together (as the rays have to come - from both sides). With one such installation with two tubes - about 150 to 200 persons could be sterilized daily, while 20 - installations would take care of 3,000 to 4,000 persons daily. - In my opinion the number of daily deportations will not exceed - this figure.” - -In this same report the defendant Brack related that, and I quote -(_NO-203_): - - “* * * the latest X-ray technique and research make it easily - possible to carry out mass sterilization by means of X-rays. - However, it appears to be impossible to take these measures - without having those who were so treated finding out sooner or - later that they definitely had been either sterilized or had - been castrated by X-rays.” - -Another letter from Brack to Himmler, in June 1942, laid the basis for -X-ray experiments which were subsequently carried out at Auschwitz. The -second paragraph of this letter forms a fitting conclusion to this -account of Nazi depravity, and I quote (_NO-205_): - - “Among 10 millions of Jews in Europe there are, I figure, at - least 2 to 3 millions of men and women who are fit enough to - work. Considering the extraordinary difficulties the labor - problem presents us with, I hold the view that these 2 to 3 - millions should be specially selected and preserved. This can, - however, only be done if at the same time they are rendered - incapable to propagate. About a year ago I reported to you that - agents of mine have completed the experiments necessary for this - purpose. I would like to recall these facts once more. - Sterilization, as normally performed on persons with hereditary - diseases, is here out of the question because it takes too long - and is too expensive. Castration by X-rays, however, is not only - relatively cheap but can also be performed on many thousands in - the shortest time. I think that at this time it is already - irrelevant whether the people in question become aware of having - been castrated after some weeks or months, once they feel the - effects.” - - J. Typhus (Fleckfieber) and Related Experiments - -From December 1941, until near the end of the war, a large program of -medical experimentation was carried out upon concentration camp inmates -at Buchenwald and Natzweiler to investigate the value of various -vaccines. This research involved a variety of diseases—typhus, yellow -fever, smallpox, paratyphoid A and B, cholera, and diphtheria. A dozen -or more of the defendants were involved in these experiments which were -characterized by the most cynical disregard of human life. Hundreds of -persons died. The experiments concerning typhus—known in Germany as -Fleckfieber or “spot fever”, but is not to be confused with American -spotted fever—were particularly appalling. - -The typhus experiments at Natzweiler were conducted by Dr. Eugen Haagen, -an officer in the Air Force Medical Service and a professor at the -University of Strasbourg. In the fall of 1943, through the defendant -Sievers, Haagen obtained 100 concentration camp prisoners for -experiments with typhus vaccines. Two hundred more prisoners were -furnished in the summer of 1944. These experiments caused many -fatalities among the prisoners. - -The general pattern of these typhus experiments was as follows. A group -of concentration camp inmates, selected from the healthier ones who had -some resistance to disease, were injected with an anti-typhus vaccine, -the efficacy of which was to be tested. Thereafter, all the persons in -the group would be infected with typhus. At the same time, other inmates -who had not been vaccinated were also infected for purposes of -comparison—these unvaccinated victims were called the “control” group. -But perhaps the most wicked and murderous circumstance in this whole -case is that still other inmates were deliberately infected with typhus -with the sole purpose of keeping the typhus virus alive and generally -available in the bloodstream of the inmates. - -The typhus murders at Buchenwald were carried out in 1942 and 1943 under -the direction of the defendants Genzken and Mrugowsky. Requests for the -human guinea pigs were turned over to, and filled by, the defendant -Hoven. The bulk of the actual work was done by an infamous physician -known as Dr. Ding, who committed suicide after the war. But Dr. Ding’s -professional diary has survived. - -The first entry in Ding’s diary, for 29 December 1941, reveals that here -again the impetus for these murderous researches came from the -Wehrmacht. This entry describes a conference sponsored by the defendant -Handloser and Dr. Conti, respective heads of the military and civilian -medical services of the Reich, which was also attended by the defendant -Mrugowsky. Typhus had been making serious inroads on the German troops -fighting in Russia. The account of this conference relates that, and I -quote (_NO-265_): - - “Since tests on animals are not of sufficient value, tests on - human beings must be carried out.” - -Other entries in the Ding diary quoted below are typical of those made -over a period of 3 years, and give some idea of the mortality among the -victims. (_NO-265._) - - “_10 Jan 42: Preliminary test B_: Preliminary test to establish - a sure means of infection: Much as in smallpox vaccination, 5 - persons were infected with virus through 2 superficial and 2 - deeper cuts in the upper arm. All of the humans used for this - test fell ill with true typhus. Incubation period up to 6 days. - - “_20 Feb 42_: Chart of the case history of the preliminary tests - to establish a sure means of infection were sent to Berlin. One - death out of five sick. - - “_17 Mar 42_: Visit of Prof. Gildemeister and Prof. Rose - (department head for tropical medicine of the Robert Koch - Institute) at the experimental station. All persons experimented - on fell sick with typhus, except two, who, the fact was - established later, already had been sick with typhus during an - epidemic at the police prison in Berlin. - - “_9 Jan 43_: By order of the surgeon general of the Waffen SS, - SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS, Dr. - Genzken, the hitherto existing typhus research station at the - concentration camp Buchenwald becomes the ‘Department for Typhus - and Virus Research’. The head of the department will be SS - Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding. During his absence, the station - medical officer of the Waffen SS, Weimar, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer - Hoven will supervise the production of vaccines. - - “_13 and 14 Apr 43_: Unit of SS Sturmbannfeuhrer Dr. Ding - ordered to I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G., Hoechst. Conference with - Prof. Lautenschlaeger, Dr. Weber and Dr. Fussgaenger about the - experimental series ‘Acridine Granulate and Rutenol’ in the - concentration camp Buchenwald. Visit to Geheimrat Otto and Prof. - Prigge in the institute for experimental therapeutics in - Frankfurt-on-Main. - - “_24 Apr 1943_: Therapeutic experiments Acridine Granulate - (A-GR2) and Rutenol (R-2) to carry out the therapeutic - experiments Acridine Granulate and Rutenol, 30 persons (15 each) - and 9 persons for control were infected by intravenous injection - of 2 cc. each of fresh blood of a typhus sick person. All - experimental persons got very serious typhus. - - “_1 Jun 1943_: Charts of case history completed. The - experimental series was concluded with 21 deaths; of these, 8 - were in Buchenwald, 8 with Rutenol and 5 control. - - “_7 Sep 1943_: Chart and case history completed. The - experimental series was concluded with 53 deaths. - - “_8 Mar-18 Mar 1944_: It is suggested by Colonel of this air - corps, Prof. Rose, the vaccine ‘Kopenhagen’, produced from mouse - liver by the National Serum Institute in Kopenhagen, be tested - for its compatibility on humans. Twenty persons were vaccinated - for immunization by intramuscular injection. * * * Ten persons - were contemplated for control and comparison. - - “_16 Apr 1944_: The remaining experimental persons were infected - on 16 April by subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. typhus sick - fresh blood. The following feel sick: 17 persons immunized: 9 - medium, 8 seriously. Nine persons from the control: 2 medium, 7 - seriously. - - “_13 Jun 1944_: Chart and case history completed and sent to - Berlin. Six deaths (3 ‘Kopenhagen’) (3 control). - - “_4 Nov 1944_: Chart and case history completed. Twenty-four - deaths.” - -Copies of each of Dr. Ding’s official reports went to the defendants -Mrugowsky and Poppendick as well as to the I. G. Farben laboratories at -Hoechst. Nowhere will the evidence in this case reveal a more wicked and -murderous course of conduct by men who claimed to practice the healing -art than in the entries of Dr. Ding’s diary relating to the typhus -experiments. - - K. Poison Experiments - -Here again the defendants were studying how to kill, and the scene is -Buchenwald. Poisons were administered to Russian prisoners of war in -their food, and German doctors stood behind a curtain to watch the -reactions of the prisoners. Some of the Russians died immediately, and -the survivors were killed in order to permit autopsies. - -The defendant Mrugowsky, in a letter written in September 1944, has -provided us with a record of another experiment in which the victims -were shot with poisoned bullets, and I quote (_NO-201_): - - “In the presence of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding, Dr. Widmann - and the undersigned, experiments with aconitin nitrate - projectiles were conducted on 11 September 1944 on 5 persons who - had been condemned to death. The projectiles in question were of - a 7.65 mm. caliber, filled with crystallized poison. The - experimental subjects, in a lying position, were each shot in - the upper part of the left thigh. The thighs of two of them were - cleanly shot through. Afterwards, no effect of the poison was to - be observed. These two experimental subjects were therefore - exempted. - - * * * * * - - “During the first hour of the experiment the pupils did not show - any changes. After 78 minutes the pupils of all three showed a - medium dilation, together with a retarded light reaction. - Simultaneously, maximum respiration with heavy breathing - inhalations set in. This subsided after a few minutes. The - pupils contracted again and their reaction improved. After 65 - minutes the patellar and achilles tendon reflexes of the - poisoned subjects were negative. The abdominal reflexes of two - of them were also negative. After approximately 90 minutes, one - of the subjects again started breathing heavily; this was - accompanied by an increasing motor unrest. Then the heavy - breathing changed into a flat, accelerated respiration, - accompanied by extreme nausea. One of the poisoned persons tried - in vain to vomit. To do so he introduced four fingers of his - hand up to the knuckles into his throat, but nevertheless could - not vomit. His face was flushed. - - “The other two experimental subjects had already early shown a - pale face. The other symptoms were the same. The motor unrest - increased so much that the persons flung themselves up and then - down, rolled their eyes and made meaningless motions with their - hands and arms. Finally the agitation subsided, the pupils - dilated to the maximum, and the condemned lay motionless. * * * - Death occurred 121, 123, and 129 minutes after entry of the - projectile.” - - L. Incendiary Bomb Experiments - -These experiments were likewise carried out at Buchenwald, and the Ding -diary gives us the facts. In November 1943 five persons were -deliberately burned with phosphorous material taken from an English -incendiary bomb. The victims were permanently and seriously injured. - - M. Jewish Skeleton Collection - -I come now to charges stated in paragraphs 7 and 11 of the indictment. -These are perhaps the most utterly repulsive charges in the entire -indictment. They concern the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers. -Sievers and his associates in the Ahnenerbe Society were completely -obsessed by all the vicious and malignant Nazi racial theories. They -conceived the notion of applying these nauseous theories in the field of -anthropology. What ensued was murderous folly. - -In February 1942, Sievers submitted to Himmler, through Rudolf Brandt, a -report from which the following is an extract (_NO-085_): - - “We have a nearly complete collection of skulls of all races and - peoples at our disposal. Only very few specimens of skulls of - the Jewish race, however, are available with the result that it - is impossible to arrive at precise conclusions from examining - them. The war in the East now presents us with the opportunity - to overcome this deficiency. By procuring the skulls of the - Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars, who represent the prototype of the - repulsive, but characteristic subhuman, we have the chance now - to obtain a palpable, scientific document. - - “The best, practical method for obtaining and collecting this - skull material could be handled by directing the Wehrmacht to - turn over alive all captured Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars to the - Field Police. They in turn are to be given special directives to - inform a certain office at regular intervals of the number and - place of detention of these captured Jews and to give them - special close attention and care until a special delegate - arrives. This special delegate, who will be in charge of - securing the ‘material’ has the job of taking a series of - previously established photographs, anthropological - measurements, and in addition has to determine, as far as - possible, the background, date of birth, and other personal data - of the prisoner. Following the subsequently induced death of the - Jew, whose head should not be damaged, the delegate will - separate the head from the body and will forward it to its - proper point of destination in a hermetically sealed tin can, - especially produced for this purpose and filled with a - conserving fluid. - - “Having arrived at the laboratory, the comparison tests and - anatomical research on the skull, as well as determination of - the race membership of pathological features of the skull form, - the form and size of the brain, etc., can proceed. The basis of - these studies will be the photos, measurements, and other data - supplied on the head, and finally the tests of the skull - itself.” - -After extensive correspondence between Himmler and the defendants -Sievers and Rudolf Brandt, it was decided to procure the skulls from -inmates of the Auschwitz concentration camp instead of at the front. The -hideous program was actually carried out, as is shown by a letter from -Sievers written in June 1943, which states in part (_NO-087_): - - “I wish to inform you that our associate, Dr. Beger, who was in - charge of the above special project, has interrupted his - experiments in the concentration camp Auschwitz because of the - existing danger of epidemics. Altogether 115 persons were worked - on, 79 were Jews, 30 were Jewesses, 2 were Poles, and 4 were - Asiatics. At the present time these prisoners are segregated by - sex and are under quarantine in the two hospital buildings of - Auschwitz.” - -After the death of these wretched Jews had been “induced” their corpses -were sent to Strasbourg. A year elapsed, and the Allied armies were -racing across France and were nearing Strasbourg where this monstrous -exhibit of the culture of the master race reposed. Alarmed, Sievers sent -a telegram to Rudolf Brandt in September 1944, from which I quote: - - “According to the proposal of 9 February 1942, and your approval - of 23 February 1942, Professor Dr. Hirt has assembled a skeleton - collection which has never been in existence before. Because of - the vast amount of scientific research that is connected with - this project, the job of reducing the corpses to skeletons has - not yet been completed. Since it might require some time to - process 80 corpses, Hirt requested a decision pertaining to the - treatment of the collection stored in the morgue of the Anatomy, - in case Strasbourg should be endangered. The collection can be - defleshed and rendered unrecognizable. This, however, would mean - that the whole work had been done for nothing—at least in - part—and that this singular collection would be lost to - science, since it would be impossible to make plaster casts - afterwards. The skeleton collection, as such is inconspicuous. - The flesh parts could be declared as having been left by the - French at the time we took over the Anatomy and would be turned - over for cremating. Please advise me which of the following - three proposals is to be carried out: - - (1) The collection as a whole is to be preserved. - - (2) The collection is to be dissolved in part. - - (3) The collection is to be completely dissolved.” - -The final chapter of this barbaric enterprise is found in a note in -Himmler’s files addressed to Rudolf Brandt stating that: - - “During his visit at the Operational Headquarters on 21 November - 1944, Sievers told me that the collection in Strasbourg had been - completely dissolved in conformance with the directive given him - at the time. He is of the opinion that this arrangement is for - the best in view of the whole situation.” - -These men, however, reckoned without the hand of fate. The bodies of -these unfortunate people were not completely disposed of, and this -Tribunal will hear the testimony of witnesses and see pictorial exhibits -depicting the charnel house which was the Anatomy Institute of the Reich -University of Strasbourg. - -I have now completed the sketch of some of the foul crimes which these -defendants committed in the name of research. The horrible record of -their degradation needs no underlining. But German medical science was -in past years honored throughout the world, and many of the most -illustrious names in medical research are German. How did these things -come to pass? I will outline briefly the historical evidence which we -will offer and which, I believe, will show that these crimes were the -logical and inevitable outcome of the prostitution of German medicine -under the Nazis. - - GERMAN MEDICAL ORGANIZATION - Before 1933 - -Two years after the reconstitution of the German Reich, in 1871, the -German Medical Association (Deutscher Aerztevereinsbund) was created, -which tied together the older local medical associations. This society -existed until it was abolished by the Nazi Government. Its structure was -democratic, and its interests included problems of hygiene and public -health, and to an increasing extent, socio-medical problems especially -in the field of sickness and disability insurance. - -Bismarck’s legislation of 1881 established compulsory sickness insurance -for workmen. In the course of the ensuing years, the vast bulk of the -workmen were insured, and consequently most of the ordinary physician’s -patients came to be insured patients. There were lists of physicians -authorized to treat insured patients, and it was a matter of vital -moment to every practicing physician to be listed. To protect their -interest with respect to listing, fees, and other such problems, the -German doctors founded a voluntary association for the defense of their -economic interests known as the Hartmann Bund. - -Questions of professional ethics, medical malpractice, etc., were -handled in Germany in two distinct sets of medical boards or “Courts.” -An entirely unofficial and voluntary system was established by the -German Medical Association. The other, which was endowed with -semi-official status, was called the Reich Chamber of Physicians. These -chambers were elected by vote of the members and were supported by an -assessment. - -In addition to these organizations, there existed in Germany purely -professional societies of doctors, where papers concerning scientific -and practical problems were read and discussed, and which established -connections with similar societies abroad. The German Government -agencies which supervised the certification and licensing of physicians -as well as their professional activities were the Ministry of Education -and the Reich Health Office (Reichsgesundheitsamt) in the Ministry of -the Interior. The latter supervised medical practice and licensing -through the channels of the Ministries of the Interior of the various -German states, although licensing was a federal function rather than a -state function. - -Medical education and training were rather standardized but good. The -students spent 5 or 6 years at one of several of the medical -universities; they took a final examination covering their clinical -studies and then spent a year at an authorized hospital under -supervision. Thereafter the interns were licensed and permitted to -establish a practice. After two more years they became eligible to treat -insurance patients, and, after submitting a thesis, could obtain the -degree of doctor from a university. - - Immediate Impact of Nazism on German Medicine - -In the years immediately preceding the Third Reich, physicians’ -organizations devoted to Party politics sprang up. One of these was the -National Socialist Physicians’ Society, founded in 1929, in which Conti -played a leading role. There was a rival association of Social -Democratic Physicians, and a Socialist Society of Physicians. These -societies proposed candidates for election to the Physicians’ Chambers, -and thus the National Socialist Physicians’ Society and the Socialist -associations came to compete with each other. - -The notorious “boycott day” in Berlin, 1 April 1933, was a day of -disgrace for German medicine. Members of the National Socialist -Physicians’ Society, who knew the membership lists of the Socialist -societies and the lists of Jewish physicians, broke into the apartments -of their Socialist and Jewish colleagues in the early morning hours, -pulled them out of their beds, beat them and brought them to the -exhibition area near the Berlin Lehrter Station. There, all of them, -including men up to 70 years old, were forced to run around the garden, -as in a hippodrome, and they were shot at with pistols or beaten with -sticks. There they had to stay for several days without sufficient food, -and then were handed over to the SA which carried part of them to the -cellars at the Hedemannstrasse jail for further tortures. - -Thereafter, the members of the Socialist Society of Physicians were -barred from all insurance practice because of “Communist and subversive -activities.” In the subsequent listings of physicians issued by the -insurance companies, the Jewish physicians were included in a separate -list headed “Enemies of the State or Jews.” Soon, the insurance -companies, even private ones, were no longer permitted to pay fees to -the Jewish physicians. Immediately thereafter, Jewish physicians were -excluded from all professional and scientific societies. At first, those -who were war veterans were nominally allowed to carry on their insurance -practice, but patients who kept going to them were threatened and -exposed to all kinds of unpleasantness on the part of the insurance -officials. - -After the war began, certification and licensing were withdrawn from all -Jewish physicians and they were degraded to the status of lay -therapists. These physicians were forced to wear a blue shield with the -Star of David and had to add a middle name such as “Sarah” or “Israel.” -Their prescriptions likewise had to bear the Star of David, which -exposed their patients to all kinds of unpleasantness when filling them -at pharmacies, most of which had signs in their windows reading “Jews -not wanted.” - -At first, the Aryan physicians were allowed to treat Jewish patients, -but finally they were prohibited from doing so. Hospitals refused -admission to Jewish patients, apart from a few courageous ones who -admitted them in defiance of the law. Jews were admitted to mental -institutions in separate wards, but usually were quickly transported -elsewhere for extermination. - -In the early summer of 1943, Conti instigated and directed a wholesale -persecution of doctors who were either foreigners or persons of -so-called mixed blood and those related by marriage to Jews. At first, -they were removed from their practice and sent off to posts under -inferior Party doctors. In 1944, Conti went a step further and forbade -these physicians to practice. They were drafted into the Speer -organization, in which they were employed solely at manual labor, their -living conditions being little better than those of concentration camp -inmates. - - Prostitution of German Medicine Under National Socialism - -The totalitarian structure of the Nazi State demanded fundamental -subordination of all principles of medicine to National Socialist -population policy and racial concepts. The most emphatic and repelling -expression of those new aims and goals came from the Nazi Director of -Public Health in the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Arthur Guett, who -took office in 1933. In a book published in 1935 entitled “The Structure -of Public Health in the Third Reich,” Guett announced that “the -ill-conceived ‘love of thy neighbor’ has to disappear, especially in -relation to inferior or asocial creatures. It is the supreme duty of a -national state to grant life and livelihood only to the healthy and -hereditarily sound portion of the people in order to secure the -maintenance of a hereditarily sound and racially pure folk for all -eternity. The life of an individual has meaning only in the light of -that ultimate aim, that is, in the light of his meaning to his family -and to his national state.” - -The entire public health policy of the Third Reich was put in line with -this pronouncement of principles. The Minister of the Interior, Frick, -reorganized the Health Department in his ministry in such a way that -police, public health, welfare administration and social services were -all coordinated in pursuit of these goals. The beginnings of this -reorganization started already in the summer of 1933 and were -substantially completed by 1936. All these activities were concentrated -under Dr. Guett, who was thus enabled to coordinate the practical -application of his policy with his theoretical principles. Even -psychiatric social service agencies, which did thorough and -well-organized work prior to 1933, were reduced to mere screening -stations for hereditary and racial selection. - -All government-employed physicians had to take a special new course -lasting 18 months and had to be Party members. The German Red Cross was -likewise drawn into the orbit of the Nazi Party and the SS, in view of -Dr. Grawitz’ appointment as president of the Red Cross. In 1945, after -Grawitz’ suicide, the defendant Gebhardt succeeded him. - -The Third Reich also completely reorganized the professional medical -societies. The German Medical Association and the Hartmann Bund were -abolished. All German physicians were reorganized through an -organization derived from the Reich Physicians’ Chamber. This National -Physicians’ Chamber was placed directly under a medical “fuehrer” with -the title of “Reichsaerztefuehrer.” This position was also held by -Conti. All doctors except those on active military duty were subordinate -to him. His regional deputies were selected from the ranks of active -National Socialists who terrorized the district branch societies. These -deputies, who usually strutted about in SA or SS uniforms, were -recruited mainly from the early members of the National Socialist -Medical Association. It was their job to bring pressure on physicians to -join and take part in various party organizations, such as the SA and -SS. - -A command performance, especially for younger physicians, was attendance -at the so-called Fuehrer-School of German Physicians at Altrehse in -Mecklenburg, which had been organized by the defendant Blome. There -physicians were indoctrinated in the National Socialist point of view -and way of life. The so-called comradely association and sports activity -were merely window dressing for political spying. These courses finally -became compulsory and had to be attended for several months annually. - -The general respect, in which doctors were held, sunk in view of the -decreasing level of general education and ability of the doctors. This -was partly due to the constant occupation of the physicians’ time with -Party functions, especially the time-consuming Party formations and -marches which made it impossible for young physicians to develop -scientific interests, so that recent graduates increasingly lost -understanding and inclination for serious scientific study and -long-range research. - - Medical School and Medical Training Under the Nazis - -On paper, medical training under the Nazis differed little from that of -the pre-Nazi era. However, its fundamental spirit was ruinously -distorted and medical standards suffered a dismal decline. - -Medical students had to be “Aryan,” and were required to belong to the -National Socialist Students’ League. The students’ entire course of -studies was constantly interrupted by the demands of the various party -organizations to which they were forced to belong. A student whose -knowledge of the racial theories and Nuernberg laws was not sufficient -would fail his medical examinations. - -Chairs in the universities were filled in many cases by Nazi so-called -“professors” who might or might not have a scientific background. The -true scientific societies under the Nazi regime became less and less -active, and the Nazi professors in the universities devoted more time -and interest to their SA or SS organizations than to the teaching of -medicine. These Nazi professors would don their brown SA or black SS -uniforms on all possible occasions, exchanging them proudly for their -academic gowns at all academic celebrations and meetings. - -The worst Nazi politicians, like Streicher, were given the free run of -university clinics, such as at Erlangen. This submissiveness to lay -politicians led to a general decline of respect for German academic -medicine not only on the part of their own public and abroad but even on -the part of the very same politicians before whom they kowtowed. This -went so far that Streicher, when addressing a full faculty meeting at -the University of Erlangen in 1936, called the assembled professors -“complete idiots” to their faces. This was by no means an isolated -occurrence. - -Particularly deplorable was the degradation of psychiatry. Psychiatric -university teaching declined to the level of a mere rehashing of the -Nuernberg and sterilization laws. The modern techniques of psychotherapy -had been abandoned, and treatment deteriorated to pep talks full of Nazi -indoctrination admonitions and threats. No wonder that these methods -backfired against the best interest of the German war effort which they -were foolishly intended to serve. The lack of proper understanding and -treatment of German soldiers who developed combat fatigue or neuroses, -on the part of their own medical personnel, drove many of them to -surrender to the enemy; efforts to rehabilitate them and restore them to -duty were frustrated by the ruinous infusion of Nazi doctrine. - - Summary - -The general decline of German medical conduct and the poisoning of -German medical ethics which the Nazis brought about laid the basis for -the atrocious experiments of which the defendants are accused. - -Many of these were experiments in name only; we will show them to have -been senseless and clumsy and of no real value to medicine as a healing -art. The Nazi medical world was flooded with preposterous and wicked -notions about superior and inferior races and developed a perverted -moral outlook in which cruelty to subjugated races and peoples was -praiseworthy. Training in SA and SS formations was hardly calculated to -develop physicians who could comprehend even the bare elements of the -doctor-patient relationship. In this noxious garden of lies, the seeds -of the experiments were planted. In the climate of Nazi Germany, they -grew with horrible rapidity. - - CRIMES OF MASS EXTERMINATION; MURDER OF - POLISH NATIONALS - -From the preaching of Guett and others sprang the notions which underlie -the crimes to which we will now turn. Here we leave behind all -semblance, however fictitious, of science and research. Under these -teachings, life and livelihood became the birthright of no one. The weak -and the physically handicapped are in the way and must be pushed aside. -Inferior peoples are born to be exterminated by the Herrenvolk. - -The charges in paragraphs 8 and 13 of the indictment concern the -defendants Blome and Rudolf Brandt. The original impetus for this -terrible mass murder came from a fiend named Greiser, who was the German -Governor of the northwest portions of Poland, which had been absorbed -into the Reich under the name “Wartheland.” Early in 1942, Greiser was -in the process of exterminating thousands of Jews in his territory, and -he decided to turn his attention next to Poles infected with -tuberculosis. I call the Tribunal’s special attention to the German word -“Sonderbehandlung.” In the next document, as will be shown, it occurs -frequently in Nazi correspondence and was used by them to mean -extermination. In May 1942, Greiser wrote to Himmler as follows -(_NO-246_): - - “The special treatment [Sonderbehandlung] of about 100,000 Jews - in the territory of my district approved by you in agreement - with the Chief of the Reich Security Main Office, SS - Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, can be completed within the next 2 - to 3 months. I ask you for permission to rescue the district - immediately after the measures are taken against the Jews, from - a menace, which is increasing week by week, and to use the - existing and efficient special commandos for that purpose. - - “There are about 230,000 people of Polish nationality in my - district who were diagnosed to suffer from tuberculosis. The - number of persons infected with open tuberculosis is estimated - at about 35,000. This fact has led in an increasing frightening - measure to the infection of Germans, who came to the Warthegau - perfectly healthy. In particular, reports are received with - ever-increasing effect of German children in danger of - infection. A considerable number of well-known leading men, - especially of the police, have been infected lately and are not - available for the war effort because of the necessary medical - treatment. The ever-increasing risks were also recognized and - appreciated by the deputy of the Reich Leader for Public Health - (Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer) Comrade Professor Dr. Blome as well - as by the leader of your X-ray battalion SS Standartenfuehrer - Professor Dr. Hohlfelder. - - “Though in Germany proper it is not possible to take appropriate - draconic steps against this public plague, I think I could take - responsibility for my suggestion to have cases of open TB - exterminated among the Polish race here in the Warthegau. Of - course only a Pole should be handed over to such an action, who - is not only suffering from open tuberculosis, but whose - incurability is proved and certified by a public health officer. - - “Considering the urgency of this project I ask for your approval - in principle as soon as possible. This would enable us to make - the preparations with all necessary precautions now to get the - action against the Poles suffering from open tuberculosis under - way, while the action against the Jews is in its closing - stages.” - -Greiser’s proposal was supported in a letter from one, Koppe, the SS and -police leader in that region, to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, to which -Brandt replied stating that the matter was under consideration and that -the final decision would rest with Hitler. Late in June, Himmler sent a -“favorable” reply to Greiser cautioning him, however, that the -exterminations should be carried out inconspicuously. Thereafter, -consultations as to how to carry out the measure occurred between -Greiser, Dr. Hohlfelder, and the defendant Blome. The views of Blome are -embodied in a letter from him to Greiser written in November 1942. This -letter contains an indescribably brutal analysis of the situation, in -which Blome expresses agreement with the view that extermination of the -tubercular Poles is the simplest and most logical solution, and -expresses doubt as to its desirability only in that it would be -difficult to keep such widespread slaughter secret, and that Hitler -might think the program politically inexpedient if the facts should ever -come out. - -I quote from the letter of defendant Blome (_NO-250_): - - “It was calculated that in 1939 there were among the Poles about - 35,000 persons suffering from open tuberculosis and, besides - this number, about 120,000 other consumptives in need of - treatment. * * * - - “With the settlement of Germans in all parts of the Gau an - enormous danger has arisen for them. A number of cases of - infection of settled children and adults occurs daily. - - * * * * * - - “Therefore, something basic must be done soon. One must decide - the most efficient way in which this can be done. There are - three ways to be taken into consideration: - - 1. Special treatment [Sonderbehandlung] of the seriously - ill persons. - - 2. Most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill persons. - - 3. Creation of a reservation for all TB patients. - - “For the planning, attention must be paid to different points of - view of a practical, political, and psychological nature. - Considering it most soberly, the simplest way would be the - following: Aided by the X-ray battalion [Roentgen Sturmbann] we - could reach the entire population, German and Polish, of the Gau - during the first half of 1943. As to the Germans, the treatment - and isolation are to be prepared and carried out according to - the regulations for Tuberculosis Relief [Tuberkulosehilfe]. - - “The approximately 35,000 Poles who are incurable and infectious - will be ‘specially treated’ [sonderbehandelt]. All other Polish - consumptives will be subjected to an appropriate cure in order - to save them for work and to avoid their causing contagion. - - “According to your request I made arrangements with the offices - in question, in order to start and carry out this radical - procedure within half a year. You told me, that the competent - office agreed with you as to this ‘special treatment’ and - promised support. Before we definitely start the program, I - think it would be correct if you would make sure once more that - the Fuehrer will really agree to such a solution. - - * * * * * - - “There can be no doubt that the intended program is the most - simple and most radical solution. If absolute secrecy could be - guaranteed, all scruples—regardless of what nature—could be - overcome. But I consider maintaining secrecy impossible. - Experience has taught us that this assumption is true. Should - those sick persons, having been brought, as planned, to the old - Reich supposedly to be treated or healed, and they actually - never return, the relatives of those sick persons in spite of - the greatest secrecy would some day notice ‘that something was - not quite right’. - - * * * * * - - “Therefore, I think it necessary to explain all those points of - view to the Fuehrer before undertaking the program, as, in my - opinion he is the only one able to view the entire complex and - to come to a decision.” - -The prosecution will introduce evidence to show that the program was in -fact carried out at the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943, and that -as a result of the suggestions made by Blome and Greiser, many Poles -were ruthlessly exterminated and that others were taken to isolated -camps, utterly lacking in medical facilities, where thousands of them -died. - - EUTHANASIA - -On 1 September 1939, the very day of the German attack on Poland, and -after a great deal of discussion between Dr. Karl Brandt, Dr. Leonardo -Conti, Philipp Bouhler, the Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, and -others, Hitler issued the following authority to the defendant Karl -Brandt (_630-PS_): - - “Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M. D., are charged with - the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain - physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that - persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, - upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be - accorded a mercy death. - - [Signed] ADOLF HITLER” - -After the receipt of this order, an organization was set up to execute -this program, Karl Brandt headed the medical section and Philipp -Bouhler, the administrative section. The defendant Hoven, as chief -surgeon of the Buchenwald concentration camp, took part in the program -and personally ordered the transfer of at least 300 to 400 Jewish -inmates of different nationalities, mostly non-German, to their death in -the euthanasia station at Bernburg. The defendants Brack and Blome -participated in their capacities as assistants to Bouhler and Conti. - -Questionnaires were forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior from the -various institutes and were then submitted to Karl Brandt and his staff -for an expert opinion in order to determine the status of each patient. -Then each of those experts indicated his opinion as to the eventual -disposition of the patient; that is, whether or not the patient should -be transferred to a killing station. The questionnaires were supposedly -returned to the Ministry of the Interior, which, in turn, sent lists of -the doomed patients to the different insane asylums, ordering the -directors of the asylums to hand over the patients to a thing called the -General Sick Transport Corporation for transfer to the particular -stations where the killings took place. This Transport Corporation was -not a real organization, but one of the code names used to disguise the -true nature of the activities. The patients were then transferred to the -station where they were immediately killed. This entire procedure took -place without the consent of the relatives, but the relatives did -receive a death certificate on which the cause of death was falsified. - -The Euthanasia Program was an open secret in top Nazi circles. However, -every possible effort had been made to keep it from the public in order -to avoid intervention by the churches. In spite of all these -precautions, it became commonly known in Germany as early as the summer -of 1940 that these killings were going on and church authorities, as -well as various legal officials, tried in vain to stop the killings. - -Typical of the letters reaching the Minister of Justice and the Minister -of Interior is the following: - -Addressed to The Reich Minister of Justice: - - “I have a schizophrenic son in a Wuerttemberg mental - institution. I am shocked about the following absolutely - reliable information. - - “Since some weeks insane persons are being taken from the - institutions allegedly on the grounds of military evacuation. - The directors of the institutions are enjoined to absolute - secrecy. Shortly afterwards the relatives are informed that the - sick person has died of encephalitis. The ashes are available if - so desired. This is plain murder just as in the concentration - camps. This measure uniformly emanates from the SS in Berlin. - The institutions dare not inform the authorities. Inquire at - once at Rottenmuenster, Schassenried, Winzertal, all in - Wuerttemberg. Have the lists of 2 months ago examined and - submitted to you, check upon the inmates who are there now and - ask where the missing persons went to. For 7 years now this gang - of murderers have defiled the German name. If my son is - murdered, woe! I shall take care that these crimes will be - published in all foreign newspapers. The SS may deny it as they - always do. I shall demand prosecution by the public prosecutor. - - “I cannot give my name nor the institution where my son is, - otherwise I, too, won’t live much longer. - - Heil Hitler - Oberregierungsrat N.” - -If this program had stayed within the bounds set forth in Hitler’s -letter to Karl Brandt, it would have been bad enough. We may pass over -as quite irrelevant any such question as whether mercy killing may not -in some circumstances be desirable, and whether a statute authorizing -mercy killings under proper safeguards would be valid. - -Such questions may be debatable, but they do not confront us here. No -German law authorizing mercy killings was ever adopted. Hitler’s -memorandum to Brandt and Bouhler was not a law, not even a Nazi law. It -was not intended to be a law or regarded as such even by the top Nazi -officials. That is why the program was carried out with the utmost -secrecy. The program was known to be utterly illegal by those who were -in charge of it; they knew it was nothing but murder. - -This is brought out very clearly in a letter from Himmler to the -defendant Brack in December 1940 (_NO-018_): - - “Dear Brack: - - “I hear there is great excitement on the Alb because of the - institution Grafeneck. - - “The population recognizes the gray automobile of the SS and - think they know what is going on at the constantly smoking - crematory. What happens there is a secret and yet is no longer - one. Thus the worst feeling has arisen there, and in my opinion - there remains only one thing, to discontinue the use of the - institution in this place and in any event disseminate - information in a clever and sensible manner by showing motion - pictures on the subject of inherited and mental diseases in just - that locality. - - “May I ask for a report as to how the difficult problem was - solved.” - -But there are more fundamental matters here. The program did not stay -even within the bounds of the secret Hitler authority. Euthanasia became -merely a polite word for the systematic slaughter of Jews and many other -categories of persons useless or unfriendly to the Nazi regime. The -evidence before the International Military Tribunal proved this clearly, -and the judgment states, and I quote:[11] - - “Reference should also be made to the policy which was in - existence in Germany by the summer of 1940, under which all - aged, insane, and incurable people, ‘useless eaters’, were - transferred to special institutions where they were killed, and - their relatives informed that they had died from natural causes. - The victims were not confined to German citizens, but included - foreign laborers, who were no longer able to work, and were - therefore useless to the German war machine. It has been - estimated that at least some 275,000 people were killed in this - manner in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums, which were - under the jurisdiction of the defendant Frick, in his capacity - as Minister of the Interior. How many foreign workers were - included in this total it has been quite impossible to - determine.” - -I quote one more paragraph from the decision:[12] - - “During the war nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums in which - euthanasia was practiced as described elsewhere in this - judgment, came under Frick’s jurisdiction. He had knowledge that - insane, sick and aged people, ‘useless eaters’, were being - systematically put to death. Complaints of these murders reached - him, but he did nothing to stop them. A report of the - Czechoslovak War Crimes Commission estimated that 275,000 - mentally deficient and aged people, for whose welfare he was - responsible, fell victim to it.” - -As stated in the indictment, the defendants involved in the euthanasia -program sent their subordinates to the eastern occupied territories to -assist in the mass extermination of Jews. This will be shown by abundant -evidence, including the following excerpt from a letter from the -defendant Brack to Himmler in 1942 from which I quote a paragraph: - - “On the instructions of Reichsleiter Bouhler I placed some of my - men at the disposal of Brigadefuehrer Globocnik to execute his - special mission. On his renewed request I have now transferred - additional personnel. On this occasion Brigadefuehrer Globocnik - stated his opinion that the whole Jewish action should be - completed as quickly as possible so that one would not get - caught in the middle of it one day if some difficulties should - make a stoppage of the action necessary. You yourself, Reich - Leader, have already expressed your view, that work should - progress quickly for reasons of camouflage alone.” - -Protesting the lawless slaughter which even Himmler sought to -“camouflage”, the Bishop of Limburg in 1941 foresaw that such insane -carnage spelled the downfall of the Third Reich. (_615-PS._) He wrote: - - “And if anybody says that Germany cannot win the war, if there - is yet a just God, these expressions are not the result of lack - of love for the Fatherland but of a deep concern for our people. - * * * High authority as a moral concept has suffered a severe - shock as a result of these happenings.” - - SUMMARY - -I have outlined the particular charges against the defendants under -count two, three, and four of the indictment; and I have sketched the -general nature of the evidence which we will present. But we must not -overlook that the medical experiments were not an assortment of -unrelated crimes. On the contrary, they constituted a well-integrated -criminal program in which the defendants planned and collaborated among -themselves and with others. - -We have here, in other words, a conspiracy and a common design, as is -charged in count one of the indictment, to commit the criminal -experiments set forth in paragraphs 6 and 11 thereof. There was a common -design to discover, or improve, various medical techniques. There was a -common design to utilize for this purpose the unusual resources which -the defendants had at their disposal, consisting of numberless -unfortunate victims of Nazi conquest and Nazi ideology. The defendants -conspired and agreed together to utilize these human resources for -nefarious and murderous purposes, and proceeded to put their criminal -design into execution. Numbered among the countless victims of the -conspiracy and the crimes are Germans, and nationals of countries -overrun by Germany, and gypsies, and prisoners of war, and Jews of many -nationalities. All the elements of a conspiracy to commit the crimes -charged in paragraphs 6 and 11 are present and all will be clearly -established by the proof. - -There were many co-conspirators who are not in the dock. Among the -planners and leaders of this plot were Conti and Grawitz, and Hippke -whose whereabouts is unknown. Among the actual executioners, Dr. Ding is -dead and Rascher is thought to be dead. There were many others. - -Final judgment as to the relative degrees of guilt among those in the -dock must await the presentation of the proof in detail. Nevertheless, -before the introduction of evidence, it will be helpful to look again at -the defendants and their part in the conspiracy. What manner of men are -they, and what was their major role? - -The 20 physicians in the dock range from leaders of German scientific -medicine, with excellent international reputations, down to the dregs of -the German medical profession. All of them have in common a callous lack -of consideration and human regard for, and an unprincipled willingness -to abuse their power over the poor, unfortunate, defenseless creatures -who had been deprived of their rights by a ruthless and criminal -government. All of them violated the Hippocratic commandments which they -had solemnly sworn to uphold and abide by, including the fundamental -principles never to do harm—“primum non nocere.” - -Outstanding men of science, distinguished for their scientific ability -in Germany and abroad, are the defendants Rostock and Rose. Both -exemplify, in their training and practice alike, the highest traditions -of German medicine. Rostock headed the Department of Surgery at the -University of Berlin and served as dean of its medical school. Rose -studied under the famous surgeon, Enderlen, at Heidelberg and then -became a distinguished specialist in the fields of public health and -tropical diseases. Handloser and Schroeder are outstanding medical -administrators. Both of them made their careers in military medicine and -reached the peak of their profession. Five more defendants are much -younger men who are nevertheless already known as the possessors of -considerable scientific ability, or capacity in medical administration. -These include the defendants Karl Brandt, Ruff, Beiglboeck, Schaefer, -and Becker-Freyseng. - -A number of the others such as Romberg and Fischer are well trained, and -several of them attained high professional position. But among the -remainder few were known as outstanding scientific men. Among them at -the foot of the list is Blome who has published his autobiography -entitled “Embattled Doctor” in which he sets forth that he eventually -decided to become a doctor because a medical career would enable him to -become “master over life and death.” - -The part that each of these 20 physicians and their 3 lay accomplices -played in the conspiracy and its execution corresponds closely to his -professional interests and his place in the hierarchy of the Third Reich -as shown in the chart. The motivating force for this conspiracy came -from two principal sources. Himmler, as head of the SS, a most terrible -machine of oppression with vast resources, could provide numberless -victims for the experiments. By doing so, he enhanced the prestige of -his organization and was able to give free rein to the Nazi racial -theories of which he was a leading protagonist and to develop new -techniques for the mass exterminations which were dear to his heart. The -German military leaders, as the other main driving force, caught up the -opportunity which Himmler presented them with and ruthlessly capitalized -on Himmler’s hideous overtures in an endeavor to strengthen their -military machine. - -And so the infernal drama was played just as it had been conceived in -the minds of the authors. Special problems which confronted the German -military or civilian authorities were, on the orders of the medical -leaders, submitted for solution in the concentration camps. Thus we find -Karl Brandt stimulating the epidemic jaundice experiments, Schroeder -demanding “40 healthy experimental subjects” for the sea-water -experiments, Handloser providing the impetus for Ding’s fearful typhus -researches, and Milch and Hippke at the root of the freezing -experiments. Under Himmler’s authority, the medical leaders of the -SS—Grawitz, Genzken, Gebhardt, and others—set the wheels in motion. -They arranged for the procurement of victims through other branches of -the SS, and gave directions to their underlings in the SS medical -service such as Hoven and Fischer. Himmler’s administrative assistants, -Sievers and Rudolf Brandt, passed on the Himmler orders, gave a push -here and a shove there, and kept the machinery oiled. Blome and Brack -assisted from the side of the civilian and party authorities. - -The Wehrmacht provided supervision and technical assistance for those -experiments in which it was most interested. A low-pressure chamber was -furnished for the high-altitude tests, the services of Weltz, Ruff, -Romberg, and Rascher for the high-altitude and freezing experiments, and -those of Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck for sea-water. In the -important but sinister typhus researches, the eminent Dr. Rose appeared -for the Luftwaffe to give expert guidance to Ding. - -The proper steps were taken to insure that the results were made -available to those who needed to know. Annual meetings of the consulting -physicians of the Wehrmacht held under Handloser’s direction were -favored with lectures on some of the experiments. The report on the -high-altitude experiment was sent to Field Marshal Milch, and a moving -picture about them was shown at the Air Ministry in Berlin. Weltz spoke -on the effects of freezing at a medical conference in Nuernberg, the -same symposium at which Rascher and others passed on their devilish -knowledge. - -There could, we submit, be no clearer proof of conspiracy. This was the -medical service of the Third Reich at work. Among the defendants in the -box sit the surviving leaders of that service. We will ask the Tribunal -to determine that neither scientific eminence nor superficial -respectability shall shield them against the fearful consequences of the -orders they gave. - -I intend to pass very briefly over matters of medical ethics, such as -the conditions under which a physician may lawfully perform a medical -experiment upon a person who has voluntarily subjected himself to it, or -whether experiments may lawfully be performed upon criminals who have -been condemned to death. This case does not present such problems. No -refined questions confront us here. - -None of the victims of the atrocities perpetrated by these defendants -were volunteers, and this is true regardless of what these unfortunate -people may have said or signed before their tortures began. Most of the -victims had not been condemned to death, and those who had been were not -criminals, unless it be a crime to be a Jew, or a Pole, or a gypsy, or a -Russian prisoner of war. - -Whatever book or treatise on medical ethics we may examine, and whatever -expert on forensic medicine we may question, will say that it is a -fundamental and inescapable obligation of every physician under any -known system of law not to perform a dangerous experiment without the -subject’s consent. In the tyranny that was Nazi Germany, no one could -give such a consent to the medical agents of the State; everyone lived -in fear and acted under duress. I fervently hope that none of us here in -the courtroom will have to suffer in silence while it is said on the -part of these defendants that the wretched and helpless people whom they -froze and drowned and burned and poisoned were volunteers. If such a -shameless lie is spoken here, we need only remember the four girls who -were taken from the Ravensbrueck concentration camp and made to lie -naked with the frozen and all but dead Jews who survived Dr. Rascher’s -tank of ice water. One of these women, whose hair and eyes and figure -were pleasing to Dr. Rascher, when asked by him why she had volunteered -for such a task, replied, “rather half a year in a brothel than half a -year in a concentration camp.” - -Were it necessary, one could make a long list of the respects in which -the experiments which these defendants performed departed from every -known standard of medical ethics. But the gulf between these atrocities -and serious research in the healing art is so patent that such a -tabulation would be cynical. - -We need look no further than the law which the Nazis themselves passed -on the 24th of November 1938 for the protection of animals. This law -states explicitly that it is designed to prevent cruelty and -indifference of man towards animals and to awaken and develop sympathy -and understanding for animals as one of the highest moral values of a -people. The soul of the German people should abhor the principle of mere -utility without consideration of the moral aspects. The law states -further that all operations or treatments which are associated with pain -or injury, especially experiments involving the use of cold, heat, or -infection, are prohibited, and can be permitted only under special -exceptional circumstances. Special written authorization by the head of -the department is necessary in every case, and experimenters are -prohibited from performing experiments according to their own free -judgment. Experiments for the purpose of teaching must be reduced to a -minimum. Medico-legal tests, vaccinations, withdrawal of blood for -diagnostic purposes, and trial of vaccines prepared according to -well-established scientific principles are permitted, but the animals -have to be killed immediately and painlessly after such experiments. -Individual physicians are not permitted to use dogs to increase their -surgical skill by such practices. National Socialism regards it as a -sacred duty of German science to keep down the number of painful animal -experiments to a minimum. - -If the principles announced in this law had been followed for human -beings as well, this indictment would never have been filed. It is -perhaps the deepest shame of the defendants that it probably never even -occurred to them that human beings should be treated with at least equal -humanity. - -This case is one of the simplest and clearest of those that will be -tried in this building. It is also one of the most important. It is true -that the defendants in the box were not among the highest leaders of the -Third Reich. They are not the war lords who assembled and drove the -German military machine, nor the industrial barons who made the parts, -nor the Nazi politicians who debased and brutalized the minds of the -German people. But this case, perhaps more than any other we will try, -epitomizes Nazi thought and the Nazi way of life, because these -defendants pursue the savage premises of Nazi thought so far. The things -that these defendants did, like so many other things that happened under -the Third Reich, were the result of the noxious merger of German -militarism and Nazi racial objectives. We will see the results of this -merger in many other fields of German life; we see it here in the field -of medicine. - -Germany surrendered herself to this foul conjunction of evil forces. The -nation fell victim to the Nazi scourge because its leaders lacked the -wisdom to foresee the consequences and the courage to stand firm in the -face of threats. Their failure was the inevitable outcome of that -sinister undercurrent of German philosophy which preaches the supreme -importance of the state and the complete subordination of the -individual. A nation in which the individual means nothing will find few -leaders courageous and able enough to serve its best interests. - -Individual Germans did indeed give warning of what was in store, and -German doctors and scientists were numbered among the courageous few. At -a meeting of Bavarian psychiatrists held in Munich in 1931, when the -poisonous doctrines of the Nazis were already sweeping Germany, there -was a discussion of mercy killings and sterilization, and the Nazi views -on these matters, with which we are now familiar, were advanced. A -German professor named Oswald Bumke rose and made a reply more eloquent -and prophetic than anyone could have possibly realized at the time. He -said: - - “I should like to make two additional remarks. One of them is, - please for God’s sake leave our present financial needs out of - all these considerations. This is a problem which concerns the - entire future of our people, indeed, one may say without being - over-emotional about it, the entire future of humanity. One - should approach this problem neither from the point of view of - our present scientific opinion nor from the point of view of the - still more ephemeral economic crises. If by sterilization we can - prevent the occurrence of mental disease then we should - certainly do it, not in order to save money for the government - but because every case of mental disease means infinite - suffering to the patient and to his relatives. But to introduce - economic points of view is not only inappropriate but outright - dangerous because the logical consequence of the thought that - for financial reasons all these human beings, who could be - dispensed with for the moment, should be exterminated, is a - quite monstrous logical conclusion; we would then have to put to - death not only the mentally sick and the psychopathic - personalities but all the crippled including the disabled - veterans, all old maids who do not work, all widows whose - children have completed their education, and all those who live - on their income or draw pensions. That would certainly save a - lot of money but the probability is that we will not do it. - - “The second point of advice is to use utmost restraint, at least - until the political atmosphere here in this country shall have - improved, and scientific theories concerning heredity and race - can no longer be abused for political purposes. Because, if the - discussion about sterilization today is carried into the arena - of political contest, then pretty soon we will no longer hear - about the mentally sick but, instead, about Aryans and - non-Aryans, about the blonde Germanic race and about inferior - people with round skulls. That anything useful could come from - that is certainly improbable; but science in general and - genealogy and eugenics in particular would suffer an injury - which could not easily be repaired again.” - -I said at the outset of this statement that the Third Reich died of its -own poison. This case is a striking demonstration not only of the -tremendous degradation of German medical ethics which Nazi doctrine -brought about, but of the undermining of the medical art and thwarting -of the techniques which the defendants sought to employ. The Nazis have, -to a certain extent, succeeded in convincing the peoples of the world -that the Nazi system, although ruthless, was absolutely efficient; that -although savage, it was completely scientific; that although entirely -devoid of humanity, it was highly systematic—that “it got things done.” -The evidence which this Tribunal will hear will explode this myth. The -Nazi methods of investigation were inefficient and unscientific, and -their techniques of research were unsystematic. - -These experiments revealed nothing which civilized medicine can use. It -was, indeed, ascertained that phenol or gasoline injected intravenously -will kill a man inexpensively and within 60 seconds. This and a few -other “advances” are all in the field of thanatology. There is no doubt -that a number of these new methods may be useful to criminals everywhere -and there is no doubt that they may be useful to a criminal state. -Certain advance in destructive methodology we cannot deny, and indeed -from Himmler’s standpoint this may well have been the principal -objective. - -Apart from these deadly fruits, the experiments were not only criminal -but a scientific failure. It is indeed as if a just deity had shrouded -the solutions which they attempted to reach with murderous means. The -moral shortcomings of the defendants and the precipitous ease with which -they decided to commit murder in quest of “scientific results”, dulled -also that scientific hesitancy, that thorough thinking-through, that -responsible weighing of every single step which alone can insure -scientifically valid results. Even if they had merely been forced to pay -as little as two dollars for human experimental subjects, such as -American investigators may have to pay for a cat, they might have -thought twice before wasting unnecessary numbers, and thought of simpler -and better ways to solve their problems. The fact that these -investigators had free and unrestricted access to human beings to be -experimented upon misled them to the dangerous and fallacious conclusion -that the results would thus be better and more quickly obtainable than -if they had gone through the labor of preparation, thinking, and -meticulous preinvestigation. - -A particularly striking example is the sea-water experiment. I believe -that three of the accused—Schaefer, Becker-Freyseng, and -Beiglboeck—will today admit that this problem could have been solved -simply and definitively within the space of one afternoon. On 20 May -1944 when these accused convened to discuss the problem, a thinking -chemist could have solved it right in the presence of the assembly -within the space of a few hours by the use of nothing more gruesome than -a piece of jelly, a semi-permeable membrane and a salt solution, and the -German Armed Forces would have had the answer on 21 May 1944. But what -happened instead? The vast armies of the disenfranchised slaves were at -the beck and call of this sinister assembly; and instead of thinking, -they simply relied on their power over human beings rendered rightless -by a criminal state and government. What time, effort, and staff did it -take to get that machinery in motion! Letters had to be written, -physicians, of whom dire shortage existed in the German Armed Forces -whose soldiers went poorly attended, had to be taken out of hospital -positions and dispatched hundreds of miles away to obtain the answer -which should have been known in a few hours, but which thus did not -become available to the German Armed Forces until after the completion -of the gruesome show, and until 42 people had been subjected to the -tortures of the damned, the very tortures which Greek mythology had -reserved for Tantalus. - -In short, this conspiracy was a ghastly failure as well as a hideous -crime. The creeping paralysis of Nazi superstition spread through the -German medical profession and, just as it destroyed character and -morals, it dulled the mind. - -Guilt for the oppressions and crimes of the Third Reich is widespread, -but it is the guilt of the leaders that is deepest and most culpable. -Who could German medicine look to to keep the profession true to its -traditions and protect it from the ravaging inroads of Nazi -pseudo-science? This was the supreme responsibility of the leaders of -German medicine—men like Rostock and Rose and Schroeder and Handloser. -That is why their guilt is greater than that of any of the other -defendants in the dock. They are the men who utterly failed their -country and their profession, who showed neither courage nor wisdom nor -the vestiges of moral character. It is their failure, together with the -failure of the leaders of Germany in other walks of life, that debauched -Germany and led to her defeat. It is because of them and others like -them that we all live in a stricken world. - ------ - -[7] Tr. pp. 12-74. - -[8] This chart is contained in Section VI, Organization of the German -Medical Service, NO-645, Pros. Ex. 3, p. 91. - -[9] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 269, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[10] Ibid., p. 271. - -[11] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol I, p. 247, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[12] Ibid., p. 301. - - - - - V. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT ON THE PRESENTATION - OF EVIDENCE MADE BY THE PROSECUTION, - 10 DECEMBER 1946[13] - - -MR. MCHANEY: May it please the Tribunal: - -Before any evidence is presented, it is my purpose to show the process -whereby documents have been procured and processed in order to be -presented in evidence by the United States. I shall also describe and -illustrate the plan of presenting documents to be followed by the -prosecution in this case. - -When the United States Army entered German territory it had specialized -military personnel whose duties were to capture and preserve enemy -documents, records, and archives. - -Such documents were assembled in temporary document centers. Later each -Army established fixed document centers in the United States Zone of -Occupation where their documents were assembled and the slow process of -indexing and cataloging was begun. Certain of these document centers in -the United States Zone of Occupation have since been closed and the -documents assembled there sent to other document centers. - -When the International Military Tribunal was set up, field teams under -the direction of Major William H. Coogan were organized and sent out to -the various document centers. Great masses of German documents and -records were screened and examined. Those selected were sent to -Nuernberg to be processed. These original documents were then given -trial identification numbers in one of five series designated by the -letters: “PS”, “L”, “R”, “C”, and “EC”, indicating the means of -acquisition of the documents. Within each series, documents were listed -numerically. - -The prosecution in this case shall have occasion to introduce in -evidence documents processed under the direction of Major Coogan. Some -of these documents were introduced in evidence before the IMT and some -were not. As to those which were, this Tribunal is required by Article -XX of Ordinance No. 7 to take judicial notice thereof. However, in order -to simplify the procedure, we will introduce photostatic copies of -documents used in Case No. 1 before the IMT to which will be attached a -certificate by Mr. Fred Niebergall, the Chief of our Document Control -Branch, certifying that such document was introduced in evidence before -the IMT and that the photostat is a true and correct copy thereof. Such -documents have been and will be made available to defendants just as in -the case of any other document. - -As to those documents processed under the direction of Major Coogan -which were not used in the case before the IMT, they are authenticated -by the affidavit of Major Coogan dated 19 November 1945. This affidavit -served as the basis of authentication of substantially all documents -used by the Office of Chief of Counsel before the IMT. It was introduced -in that trial as USA Exhibit 1. Since we will use certain documents -processed for the IMT trial, I would now like to introduce as -Prosecution Exhibit 1 the Coogan affidavit,[14] in order to authenticate -such documents. This affidavit explains the manner in and means by which -captured German documents were processed for use in war crimes trials. I -shall not burden the court with reading it as it is substantially the -same as the affidavit of Mr. Niebergall to which I shall come in a -moment. - -I have thus far explained the manner of authenticating documents to be -used in this case which were processed under the direction of Major -Coogan. I now come to the authentication of documents processed not for -the IMT trial, but for subsequent trials such as this one. These -documents are authenticated by the affidavit of Mr. Niebergall which I -offer in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 2. Since this affidavit -explains the procedure of processing documents by the Office of Chief of -Counsel for War Crimes, I shall read it in full: - - “I, Fred Niebergall, AGO, D-150636, of the Office of Chief of - Counsel for War Crimes, do hereby certify as follows: - - 1. I was appointed Chief of the Document Control Branch, - Evidence Division, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes - (hereinafter referred to as ‘OCC’) on 2 October 1946. - - 2. I have served in the U. S. Army for more than 5 years, being - discharged as a 1st Lieutenant, Infantry, on 29 October 1946. I - am now a Reserve officer with the rank of 1st Lieutenant in the - Army of the United States of America. Based upon my experience - as a United States Army officer, I am familiar with the - operation of the United States Army in connection with seizing - and processing captured enemy documents. I served as Chief of - Translations for OCC from 29 July 1945 until December 1945, when - I was appointed liaison officer between Defense Counsel and - Translation Division of OCC as assistant to the executive - officer of the Translation Division. In my capacity as Chief of - the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I am - familiar with the processing, filing, translation, and - photostating of documentary evidence for the United States Chief - of Counsel. - - 3. As the Army overran German occupied territory and then - Germany itself, certain specialized personnel seized enemy - documents, records and archives. Such documents were assembled - in temporary centers. Later fixed document centers were - established in Germany and Austria where these documents were - assembled and the slow process of indexing and cataloging was - begun. Certain of these document centers have since been closed - and the documents assembled there sent to other document - centers. - - 4. In preparing for the trial before the International Military - Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘IMT’) a great number of - original documents, photostats, and microfilms were collected at - Nuernberg, Germany. Major Coogan’s affidavit of 19 November 1945 - describes the procedures followed. Upon my appointment as Chief - of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I - received custody, in the course of official business, of all - these documents except the ones which were introduced into - evidence in the IMT trial and are now in the IMT Document Room - in Nuernberg. Same have been screened, processed, and registered - in accordance with Major Coogan’s affidavit. The unregistered - documents remaining have been screened, processed, and - registered for use in trials before Military Tribunals - substantially in the same way as described below. - - 5. In preparing for trials subsequent to the IMT trial personnel - thoroughly conversant with the German language were given the - task of searching for and selecting captured enemy documents - which disclosed information relating to the prosecution of Axis - war criminals. Lawyers and research analysts were placed on duty - at various document centers and also dispatched on individual - missions to obtain original documents or certified photostats - thereof. The documents were screened by German speaking analysts - to determine whether or not they might be valuable as evidence. - Photostatic copies were then made of the original documents and - the original documents returned to the files in the document - centers. These photostatic copies were certified by the analysts - to be true and correct copies of the original documents. - German-speaking analysts either at the document center or in - Nuernberg, then prepared a summary of the document with - appropriate references to personalities involved, index - headings, information as to the source of the document, and the - importance of the documents to a particular division of OCC. - - 6. Next, the original document or certified photostatic copy was - forwarded to the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, - OCC. Upon receipt of these documents, they were duly recorded - and indexed and given identification numbers in one of six - series designated by the letters ‘NO,’ ‘NI,’ ‘NM,’ ‘NOKW,’ ‘NG,’ - and ‘NP,’ indicating the particular Division of OCC which might - be most interested in the individual documents. Within each - series documents were listed numerically. - - 7. In the case of the receipt of original documents, photostatic - copies were made. Upon return from the photostat room, the - original documents were placed in envelopes in fireproof safes - in the document room. In the case of the receipt of certified - photostatic copies of documents, the certified photostatic - copies were treated in the same manner as original documents. - - 8. All original documents or certified photostatic copies - treated as originals are now located in safes in the document - room, where they will be secured until they are presented by the - prosecution to a court during the progress of a trial. - - 9. Therefore, I certify in my official capacity as hereinabove - stated, that all documentary evidence relied upon by OCC is in - the same condition as when captured by military forces under the - command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces; - that they have been translated by competent qualified - translators; that all photostatic copies are true and correct - copies of the originals, and that they have been correctly - filed, numbered, and processed as above outlined. - - [Signed] FRED NIEBERGALL.” - -The Niebergall affidavit is in substance the same as the Coogan -affidavit which was accepted by the International Military Tribunal as -sufficient authentication of documents used in Case No. 1. However, in -addition to these affidavits, the prosecution in this case will attach -to each document submitted in evidence, other than self-proving -documents such as affidavits signed by the defendants, a certificate -signed by an employee of the Evidence Division of the Office of Chief of -Counsel for War Crimes, reading, for example, as follows: - - “I, Donald Spencer, of the Evidence Division of the Office of - Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, hereby certify that the - attached document, consisting of one photostated page and - entitled, ‘Letter from John Doe to Richard Rod, dated 19 June - 1943,’ is the original of a document which was delivered to me - in my above capacity, in the usual course of official business, - as a true copy of a document found in German archives, records, - and files captured by military forces under the command of the - Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces. - - “To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the - original document is at the Berlin Document Center.” - -So much for the authentication of documents to be presented in this -trial. I turn now briefly to the distribution of documents which we will -use. The prosecution made available to the Defendants’ Information -Center approximately a week ago three photostatic copies of the great -bulk of the documents which will be used in our case-in-chief. These -documents are of course in German. In addition, the prosecution has -prepared document books in both German and English which contain, for -the most part, mimeographed copies of the documents, arranged -substantially in the order in which they will be presented in this -court. Each document book contains an index giving the document number, -description, and page number. A space is also provided for writing in -the index number. - -Twelve official copies of the German document books will be filed in the -Defendants’ Information Center at least 24 hours prior to the time that -particular material will be introduced in court. In addition, defense -counsel will receive seven so-called unofficial German document books, -which will contain mimeographed copies prepared primarily for the German -Press. Six official copies of the German document books will be -presented to the Tribunal—one for each of the Justices on the bench and -one for the Secretary General. Two of such document books will contain -photostatic copies in order that the Tribunal may from time to time -refer to the original. Document books will also be made available to the -German interpreters and court reporters. - -The English document books will contain certified translations of the -documents in the German document books. The documents will be numbered -and indexed identically in both the English and German versions. The -Defendants’ Information Center will receive four copies of the English -document books at the same time the corresponding German document book -is delivered. A representative group of the defense attorneys have -agreed that four of the English document books are sufficient to meet -their needs. - -The Tribunal will receive six English document books and sufficient -copies will also be made available to the interpreters and court -reporters. Copies of all documents introduced in evidence will -thereafter be made available to the press. - -The prosecution will sometimes have occasion to use documents which have -just been discovered and are not in document books. In such cases we -will try to have copies in the Defendants’ Information Center a -reasonable time in advance of their use in court. Now, I must point out -to your Honors, and I do so without any embarrassment, that there will -surely be some instances during the course of this trial when the -prosecution fails to comply with one or the other of the court’s rulings -in view of the fact that few of our personnel here were able to obtain -experience and training in the technicalities in the course of Case No. -1 before the International Military Tribunal, but be that as it may, we -shall constantly endeavor to present our case as fairly, as clearly, and -as expeditiously as is humanly possible. - -The prosecution, when presenting a document in Court, will physically -hand the original, or the certified photostatic copy serving as the -original, to the clerk of the Tribunal, and give the document a -prosecution exhibit number. - -In the IMT trial, the usual practice, to which there were many -exceptions, was that only those documents or portions of documents which -had been read aloud in Court were considered to be in evidence and part -of the record. Now this was due to the fact that the IMT trial was -conducted in four languages and only through that method were -translations in all four languages ordinarily available. However, the -IMT ruled several times, for example on 17 December 1945, that documents -which had been translated into all four languages and made available to -defense counsel in the Defendants’ Information Center were admissible in -evidence without being read in full. - -The prosecution believed that, under the circumstances of this trial, -which will be conducted in German and English only, and with all the -prosecution’s documents translated into German, it will be both -expeditious and fair to dispense with the reading in full of all -documents or portions of documents. The prosecution will read some -documents in full, particularly in the early stages of the trial, but -will endeavor to expedite matters by summarizing documents when -possible, or otherwise calling the attention of the Tribunal to such -passages therein as are deemed important and relevant. - -With respect to the order of trial, the prosecution intends to follow, -to a large degree, the order in which the various experiments are set -forth in the indictment. There will be some exceptions to that; for -instance, we will present the sea-water experiments, the proof of -sea-water experiments following the malaria experiments, which will be -third in order, and in time we will move to the proof of reading the -Lost gas experiments because of the overlapping of the testimony of -certain witnesses. Insofar as possible, we will endeavor to present all -of the evidence relating to a particular experiment at the same time. -This will be impossible, of course, where the testimony of a witness -overlaps several experiments. - ------ - -[13] Tr. pp. 75-83. - -[14] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. II, pp. 157-160, Nuremberg, -1947. - - - - - VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE GERMAN MEDICAL SERVICES - - - a. Introduction - -The opening statement of the prosecution (pp. 27-74) deals rather -extensively with the organization of the Medical Service of the -Wehrmacht, the Medical Service of the SS, and the Civilian Health -Service. The Ahnenerbe Society and the Institute for Military Scientific -Research, which was set up within the Ahnenerbe, are also mentioned. - -Evidence concerning the positions which the prosecution alleged the -defendants held is contained in its document book number one. Selections -from this document book are set forth on pages 81-91. - - b. Evidence - - Pros. - Doc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page - NO-080 5 Fuehrer Decree, 28 July 1942, concerning 81 - the Medical and Health Services. - NO-081 6 Second Fuehrer Decree, 5 September 1943, 83 - concerning the Medical and Health - Services. - NO-082 7 Fuehrer Decree, 25 August 1944, concerning 83 - the appointment of a Reich Commissioner - for Medical and Health Services. - NO-227 11 Fuehrer Decree of 7 August 1944, concerning 84 - the reorganization of the Medical - Services of the Wehrmacht. - NO-303 32 Table of Organization of the “Ahnenerbe” 88 - from the files of the Ahnenerbe Society. - NO-422 33 Letter from Himmler to Sievers, 7 July 89 - 1942, concerning the establishment of an - “Institute for Military Scientific - Research” within the Ahnenerbe Society. - NO-894 38 Fuehrer Decree, 9 June 1942, concerning the 90 - Reich Research Council. - NO-645 3 Table of organization of the Reich 91 - Commissioner for Health and Medical - Services, drawn by the defendant Karl - Brandt. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-080 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 5. - -FUEHRER DECREE, 28 JULY 1942, CONCERNING THE MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES - - 1942 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 515 - - Fuehrer Decree of 28 July 1942, Concerning the Medical and Health - Services - -The utilization of personnel and material in the field of medical and -health matters demands a coordinated and planned direction. Therefore, I -order the following: - -1. For the Wehrmacht I commission the Medical Inspector of the Army, in -addition to his present duties, with the coordination of all tasks -common to the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS, and the -organizations and units subordinate or attached to the Wehrmacht, as -Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht. - -The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht is to represent the -Wehrmacht before the civilian authorities in all common medical problems -arising in the various branches of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS, and -organizations and units subordinate or attached to the Wehrmacht, and -will protect the interests of the Wehrmacht in all medical measures -taken by the civilian authorities. - -For the purpose of coordinated treatment of these problems, a medical -officer of the Navy and a medical officer of the Luftwaffe will be -assigned to work under him, the latter in the capacity of chief of -staff. Fundamental problems pertaining to the Medical Service of the -Waffen SS will be worked out in agreement with the Medical Inspectorate -of the Waffen SS. - -2. In the field of the Civilian Health Service, the State Secretary in -the Ministry of the Interior and Reich Chief for Public Health, Dr. -Conti, is responsible for coordinated measures. For this purpose he has -at his disposal the competent departments of the highest Reich -authorities and their subordinate offices. - -3. I empower Prof. Dr. Karl Brandt, subordinate only to me personally -and receiving his instructions directly from me, to carry out special -tasks and negotiations to readjust the requirements for doctors, -hospitals, medical supplies, etc., between the military and the civilian -sectors of the health and medical services. - -4. My plenipotentiary for health and medical services is to be kept -informed about the fundamental events in the Medical Service of the -Wehrmacht and in the Civilian Health Service. He is authorized to -intervene in a responsible manner. - -Fuehrer Headquarters, 28 July 1942 - The Fuehrer - ADOLF HITLER - The Chief of the OKW - KEITEL - The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery - DR. LAMMERS - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-081 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 6 - - SECOND FUEHRER DECREE, 5 SEPTEMBER 1943, CONCERNING THE MEDICAL AND - HEALTH SERVICES - - 1943 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 533 - - Second Fuehrer Decree of 5 September 1943, Concerning the Medical and - Health Services - -In amplification of my decree concerning the Medical and Health Services -of 28 July 1942 (RGBL. I, p. 515) I order: - -The Plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health Services, General -Commissioner Professor Dr. med. Brandt is charged with centrally -coordinating and directing the problems and activities of the entire -Medical and Health Services according to instructions. In this sense -this order applies also to the field of Medical Science and Research, as -well as to the organizational institutions concerned with the -manufacture and distribution of medical material. - -The Plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health services is authorized to -appoint and commission special deputies for his spheres of action. - -Fuehrer Headquarters, 5 September 1943 - The Fuehrer - ADOLF HITLER - The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery - DR. LAMMERS - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-082 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 7 - - FUEHRER DECREE, 25 AUGUST 1944, CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF A REICH - COMMISSIONER FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES - - 1944 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 185 - -Fuehrer Decree of 25 August 1944, Concerning the Appointment of a Reich - Commissioner for Medical and Health Services - -I hereby appoint the General Commissioner for Medical and Health -matters, Professor Dr. Brandt, Reich Commissioner for Sanitation and -Health [Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Services] as well, for -the duration of this war. In this capacity his office ranks as highest -Reich Authority. - -The Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Services is authorized to -issue instructions to the offices and organizations of the State, Party, -and Wehrmacht which are concerned with the problems of the medical and -health services. - -Fuehrer Headquarters, 25 August 1944 - The Fuehrer - ADOLF HITLER - The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery - DR. LAMMERS - The Head of the Party Chancellery - M. BORMANN - The Chief of the OKW - KEITEL - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-227 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT II - - FUEHRER DECREE OF 7 AUGUST 1944, CONCERNING THE REORGANIZATION OF THE - MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE WEHRMACHT - - Copy -The Fuehrer - and -Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht - Fuehrer Headquarters, 7 August 1944 -Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht [Chief OKW] -Ops. Staff of the Wehrmacht (WFSt) -Org. (I) No. 5008/44g - -To obtain a better concentration of powers in the field of the Medical -Service of the Wehrmacht, I order in extension of my decree of 28 July -1942: - -1. The Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht will direct, as far -as the special field is concerned, the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht -and the organizations and services installed within the framework of the -Wehrmacht. He is authorized to issue orders, within the special field of -his jurisdiction. - -2. I approve the service regulation for the Chief of the Medical -Services of the Wehrmacht issued by the Chief of the Supreme Command of -the Wehrmacht. It will replace the one of 28 July 1942, which was in -effect up to now. - -3. The personal union of the Chief of Medical Services of the Wehrmacht -and the Chief of the Medical Service of the Army/Army Physician -[Heeressanitaetsinspekteur/Heeresarzt] is herewith cancelled as of -September 1944. - - [Signed] ADOLF HITLER -The Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht -Reference No. 5008/44 secret - Fuehrer Headquarters, 7 August 1944 - - SERVICE REGULATION - for the Chief of the Medical Services of the - Wehrmacht[15] [Chef W San] - - I - Subordination and Powers - -1. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will be directly -under the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht. He will have -the position of an office chief [Amtschef] and the disciplinary power -according to paragraph 18 of the Wehrmacht Regulation for Disciplinary -Action (WDSTO) and the other powers of a Commanding General. - -2. He has authority according to No. 1 of the Fuehrer Decree over the -following: - -_a._ The Chief of the Army Medical Service, the Chief of the Navy -Medical Service, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, the -Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, and the medical chiefs of -the organizations and services employed within the framework of the -Wehrmacht while they are acting in the area of command of the Wehrmacht. - -_b._ All scientific medical institutes, academies, and other medical -institutions of the services of the Wehrmacht and of the Waffen SS. - - II - Duties - -1. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht is the adviser of -the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht in all questions -concerning the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht and of its health -guidance, - -2. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will direct all -the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht[16] as far as the special field is -concerned, with regard for the military instructions of the Chief of the -Supreme Command of the Armed Forces and the general rules of the -Fuehrer’s Commissioner General for the Medical and Health Departments. -[page 2 of original] - -3. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will inform the -Fuehrer’s Commissioner General about basic events in the field of the -Medical Services of the Wehrmacht. - -He will represent the Wehrmacht to the civilian authorities in all -mutual medical affairs and he will protect their interests in connection -with the health measures of the civilian administrative authorities. - -He will represent the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht to the medical -services of foreign powers. - -4. Other duties of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht -will be: - -_a. In the medical-scientific field_: - -Uniform measures in the field of health guidance, research and the -combating of epidemics, and all medical measures which require a uniform -ruling within the Wehrmacht. Evaluation of medical experiences. - -Medical matters of the recruiting system, of welfare and maintenance and -of prisoners of war. - -The presidency of the Scientific Senate of the Medical Services of the -Wehrmacht. - -_b. In the organization and training system_: - -Uniform and planned direction of the allocation of persons and material. - -Unification of the tables of organization and the tables of equipment of -the medical troops and the equal provision of the forces with medical -personnel.[17] - -Direction of a uniform development of the medical equipment.[A1] - -Unification in the sphere of hospital matters, balanced planning, and -allocation of hospitals. - -Direction of the distribution of wounded and sick soldiers to the -hospital installations of the Wehrmacht. - -Direction of the voluntary sick-nursing within the Wehrmacht. - -Assimilation of the organization and of the training of the new -generation of medical officers. Balancing of the proportion according to -the requirements of the services. Supervision of the ideological and -political training of the new generation of medical officers during the -course of their studies in cooperation with the Reich Student Leader. -Training and advanced training of medical officers. - -Direction of a uniform training of the medical subaltern personnel.[A2] - -_c. In the field of matériel_: - -Centralized procurement and direction of fresh supplies of medical -matériel of all kinds for the Wehrmacht. - -_d. General and fundamental pharmaceutical matters._ - - III - Special Powers - -1. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht is entitled to -request from the services all records necessary for the performance of -his assignments. - -2. He is entitled to express his view on the appointment of medical -officers or medical leaders in the Wehrmacht and also in the units of -the Waffen SS which are subordinated to the Wehrmacht—if the position -is that of a Generalarzt or a higher position. Before filling these -positions, his opinion has to be heard. - -3. He is entitled to inspect the medical service, the medical units, the -medical troops and installations of the Wehrmacht after having informed -the high command of the service concerned or the headquarters of the -units concerned. He is entitled to give orders on the spot in the field -of medical service, if these are necessary for the removal of -emergencies and do not disagree with fundamental orders of the services. -He has to inform the high commands of the services concerned about the -results of the inspections and about the issued orders. - -4. Fundamental changes in the organization of the medical service, in -the subordination of medical officers, noncommissioned officers, and -enlisted men and of the officials and employees of the medical service -require the consent of the Chief of the Medical Services of the -Wehrmacht. - -5. Deputy of the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht shall be -the senior Medical Inspector or the Medical Chief of one of the -services. The Chief of Staff will act as his deputy for routine duties. - -6. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht issues orders -necessary for the performance of his assignments under the name: - -“Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht, Chief of the Medical Services of the -Wehrmacht.” - -As far as necessary the services will execute his orders and requests -through army channels. - -7. For the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht the new table -of organization of 1 April 1944 is taking effect. - -The necessary personnel are to be taken from the services, etc., above -all from their medical inspectorates or offices. - - [Signed] KEITEL - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-303 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 32 - -TABLE OF ORGANIZATION OF THE “AHNENERBE” FROM THE FILES OF THE AHNENERBE - SOCIETY - - “THE AHNENERBE” - - _The President_ - The Reich Leader SS H. HIMMLER - - _Trustee_ - SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. WALTHER WUEST - - _The Reich Business Manager_ - SS Hauptsturmfuehrer WOLFRAM SIEVERS - - _Reich Business Management_ - - _Deputy Reich Business Manager_ - SS Obersturmfuehrer HERBERT MENZ - - _Consultant Secretary_ - Dr. GISELA SCHMITZ-KAHLMANN - - _The Special Commissioner of the Reich Leader SS_ - Sturmbannfuehrer BRUNO GALKE - - _Administration_ - SS Untersturmbannfuehrer HANS-ULRICH HUEHNE - - Graduate of a Business College ALFONS EBEN - -The task of the Research and Instruction Group “The Ahnenerbe” is -investigation of space, spirit, accomplishments, and heritage of the -Indo-Germanic peoples of Nordic race, the vivification of the results of -their research and their transmission to the people. - - Realization - - Establishment of instruction and research centers - - Assignment of research work and conduct of research expeditions - - Publication of scientific works - - Support of scientific work - - Organization of scientific congresses - - The Ahnenerbe Foundation - - The purpose of the Foundation is to further the endeavors of - “The Ahnenerbe”, registered society, by donations from the - proceeds of the capital of the Foundation and from the capital - itself. To interest people who declare themselves willing to put - certain contributions either once or at fixed intervals at the - disposal of the Foundation. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-422 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 33 - - LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO SIEVERS, 7 JULY 1942, CONCERNING THE -ESTABLISHMENT OF AN “INSTITUTE FOR MILITARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH” WITHIN - THE AHNENERBE SOCIETY - -The Reich Leader SS Fuehrer Headquarters, 7 July 1942 -AR 48/6/42 - - [Stamp] - -1. Personal Staff Reich Leader SS - Archives, File No. AR/22/21 - - SECRET! - -1. To the Reich Manager of the Ahnenerbe - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers - _Berlin-Dahlem_ - -I request the Ahnenerbe - -1. to establish an Institute for Military Scientific Research, - -2. to support in every possible way the research carried out by SS -Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, and to promote all corresponding -research and undertakings, - -3. to make available the required apparatus, equipment, accessories and -assistants, or to procure them, - -4. to make use of the facilities available in Dachau, - -5. to contact the Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main -Office [Wirtschaftsverwaltungshauptamt] with regard to the costs, which -can be borne by the Waffen SS. - - [Signed] H. H. [HEINRICH HIMMLER] - -2. Copy forwarded to the Chief of the Economic and Administrative Main -Office, - -SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl - -Berlin—Lichterfelde—West - - with the request to take note. - - By order, - [Signed] BRANDT - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - M. 7.7. - -Certified True Copy: -Signed M. -SS Obersturmfuehrer -7.7. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-894 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 38 - - FUEHRER DECREE, 9 JUNE 1942, CONCERNING THE REICH RESEARCH COUNCIL - - 1942 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 389 - - Fuehrer Decree of 9 June 1942 Concerning the Reich Research Council - -The necessity to expand all available forces to highest efficiency in -the interest of the state requires, not only in peace time but also, and -especially, in war time, the concentrated effort of scientific research -and its channellization toward the goal to be aspired. - -Therefore, I commission the Reich Marshal Hermann Goering to establish -as an independent entity a Reich Research Council, which is to serve -this purpose, to take over its chairmanship himself and to give it a -charter. - -Leading men of science above all are to make research fruitful for -warfare by working together in their special fields. The hitherto -existing Reich Research Council which was under the Reich Minister for -Science and Education [Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung] is to -be absorbed by the new organization. - -The means needed for research purposes are to be established in the -Reich budget as far as they will not be raised from contributions (for -research) of circles interested in research. - -Fuehrer Headquarters, 9 June 1942 - The Fuehrer - ADOLF HITLER - The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery - DR. LAMMERS - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-645 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 3 - -[Illustration: Table of Organization of the Reich Commissioner for -Health and Medical Service, drawn by the defendant Karl Brandt] - ------ - -[15] To Wehrmacht in this connection belong: Army, Navy, Luftwaffe, the -Waffen SS units under orders of the Wehrmacht and the organizations and -services engaged within the framework of the Wehrmacht. [Footnote in -original document.] - -[16] Same as Footnote 15 above. - -[17] As to the Navy these rules will not apply or will apply with -restrictions only to personnel _on board_. [Footnote in original -document.] - - - - -VII. EXTRACTS FROM ARGUMENTATION AND EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE - - - A. Medical Experiments - - 1. HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf -Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Ruff, Romberg, Becker-Freyseng, -and Weltz were charged with special responsibility for and participation -in criminal conduct involving high-altitude experiments (par. 6 (_A_) of -the indictment). During the course of the trial, the prosecution -withdrew this charge in the cases of Karl Brandt, Handloser, Poppendick, -and Mrugowsky. Only the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers were -convicted on this charge. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the high-altitude -experiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendants -Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz. An extract from this brief is set forth below -on pages 92 to 113. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the -defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs -for the defendants Ruff and Sievers. It appears below on pages 114 to -140. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on -pages 140 to 198. - - b. Selection From the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANTS RUFF, ROMBERG, AND - WELTZ_ - -Early in the war it was deemed necessary to conduct research in the -field of high altitudes because of the higher ceilings reached by the -Allied fighter planes. This created the problem of availability of human -experimental subjects, inasmuch as animal experimentation was considered -inadequate. The heights involved were 12,000 meters to over 20,000 -meters, hence it goes without saying that such experiments were very -dangerous and, as indicated by the evidence, volunteers were not to be -had. This difficulty was overcome by the use of concentration camp -inmates without their consent. The first indication of this criminal -plan appears in a letter from Dr. Sigmund Rascher, a Luftwaffe -physician, in a letter to the Reich Leader SS dated 15 May 1941: - - “For the time being, I have been assigned to the Luftgau - Kommando VII, Munich, for a medical selection course. During - this course, where research on high-altitude flying plays a - prominent part, determined by the somewhat higher ceiling of the - English fighter planes, considerable regret was expressed that - no experiments on human beings have so far been possible for us - because such experiments are very dangerous, _and nobody is - volunteering_. I therefore put the serious question: is there - any possibility that two or three professional criminals can be - made available for these experiments?” [Emphasis supplied.] - (_1602, PS, Pros. Ex. 44._) - -It further appears in this Rascher letter of 15 May 1941 that Rascher -had conferred with another Luftwaffe physician and that a tentative -agreement had been reached wherein it was determined that the -experiments on the concentration camp inmates, in which the experimental -subjects were expected to die, would be performed at the “Bodenstaendige -Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe” at Munich: - - “The experiments are being performed at the Ground Station for - High-Altitude Experiments of the Luftwaffe [Bodenstaendige - Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe] at Munich. The - experiments, in which the experimental subject of course may - die, would take place with my collaboration. They are absolutely - essential for the research on high-altitude flying and cannot, - as it had been tried until now, be carried out on monkeys, - because monkeys offer entirely different test conditions. I had - an absolutely confidential talk with the representative of the - Luftwaffe physician who is conducting these experiments. He also - is of the opinion that the problems in question can only be - solved by experiments on human beings.” (_1602-PS, Pros. Ex. - 44._) - - * * * * * - -Weltz testified that a meeting took place in the summer of 1941 on the -occasion of a visit by Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke to Luftgau VII. (_Tr. -p. 7056._) In a discussion between Weltz, Kottenhoff, and Hippke, Hippke -gave his approval in principle to the experiments if they were deemed -necessary. (_Tr. p. 7065._) In the course of the summer of 1941, Rascher -went to Weltz and proposed the slow-ascent experiments, but Weltz turned -them down as unnecessary. (_Tr. p. 7176._) This testimony of the -defendant Weltz clearly indicates the jurisdiction Weltz had over -Rascher’s activities. This refusal to permit the performance of -slow-ascent experiments bears out the contention of the prosecution that -the defendant Weltz had the power and the authority to intervene at any -time. Weltz’ actions throughout the entire development of the plans for -the experiments were not merely negative. He was in full accord with the -entire enterprise and he realized that Rascher did not possess the -necessary qualifications to conduct these experiments without the -assistance of a specialist in this particular field of aviation -medicine. Furthermore, although Rascher was attached to Weltz’ Institute -he had no other definite work. (_Tr. pp. 7078 and 7187._) To find a -specialist to collaborate with Weltz and Rascher proved to be a -difficult task. Weltz first approached members of his own institute, -namely Lutz and Wendt, men of considerable reputation in this field, but -to no avail. Wolfgang Lutz appeared before this Tribunal and testified -that Weltz requested his assistance, as well as the assistance of Wendt, -but that they both refused on moral grounds. (_Tr. p. 269._) Weltz did -not deny this, but contended that his questions to Lutz were purely -rhetorical. (_Tr. p. 7069._) - -The inability to interest a specialist in the field of high-altitude -research to collaborate with Rascher explains the cause for the lapse of -time between the date of the authorization by Himmler and the actual -date of the commencement of the experiments, viz, July 1941 to February -1942. Weltz was not a specialist in high-altitude research. Kottenhoff -was transferred to Romania, and Rascher was comparatively a novice in -this field. - -The next step taken by Weltz, which led to the completion of the plans -to conduct the high-altitude experiments on human beings at the Dachau -concentration camp, was his invitation to the defendants Ruff and -Romberg to collaborate with Rascher. These two men were experts in this -field and were interested in further research in altitudes exceeding -12,000 meters. Weltz testified that he made a trip to Berlin and that -Ruff accepted his invitation to collaborate with Rascher. (_Tr. p. -7188._) The evidence shows that Weltz approached Ruff and Romberg as he -needed expert assistance. (_NO-437, Pros. Ex. 42_; _NO-263, Pros. Ex. -47_; _NO-191, Pros. Ex. 43_.) The defendant Ruff stated that he first -heard of the plan to carry out research on inmates of the Dachau -concentration camp from the defendant Weltz and that Weltz desired -collaboration between Romberg and Rascher and between Weltz’ Institute -and Ruff’s Institute. (_Tr. p. 6653._) Furthermore, Ruff testified that -Weltz stated: - - “It is, of course, best if you or Romberg take part in these - experiments because Romberg had already carried out such - parachute descent experiments and is therefore the man who knows - about the whole problem of rescue from high altitudes.” (_Tr. - pp. 6654-5._) Ruff further testified that Weltz suggested that a - new series of experiments in parachute descents from great - heights should be carried out at Dachau on prisoners. (_Tr. p. - 6653._) - -From this moment on, the experimental program started to move as a -mutual undertaking. This is better stated by the defendant Weltz: - - “This was to be a mutual undertaking, during which Ruff was to - detail Romberg and I was to detail Rascher. Ruff naturally was - to be chief of Romberg and I, as a matter of course, was to be - Rascher’s chief. Ruff couldn’t give any orders to Rascher. - Rascher was a captain in the Medical Corps and Ruff was a - civilian. I couldn’t give any orders to Romberg because Romberg - was a civilian while I was a soldier. Naturally, this is how the - distribution was. It had to be that way. Furthermore, it was - clear that I couldn’t in any way retire. I could not just leave - Rascher to Ruff. It was quite clear that I had to participate in - these experiments by exercising supervision, but not by actively - participating.” (_Tr. p. 7079._) - -This evidence certainly rebuts Weltz’ vague contention that he was not -in search of specialists in high-altitude research to collaborate with -him and Rascher. Without the efforts of Weltz the experiments could -never have taken place. In brief, to conduct these experiments at -altitudes exceeding 12,000 meters Weltz found it necessary to secure the -assistance of experts in the field, as well as a low-pressure chamber -which would meet his needs. Ruff and Romberg possessed both, and in the -above manner Weltz skillfully engineered the whole plan. - -Immediately after Weltz had completed his negotiations with Ruff, he -called a meeting at his institute in Munich, wherein discussions of a -technical nature concerning the experiments were held. At this meeting, -Ruff, Romberg, Rascher, and Weltz were in attendance. This meeting was -at Weltz’ Institute and Weltz presided over the meeting. It was further -decided that a second meeting was to be held at Dachau a few days later -in order to make the necessary arrangements with the camp commander. -This trip took place in order to discuss technical preparations with the -camp commander, and to arrange details concerning the selection of the -experimental subjects. Again, Weltz, Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher were in -attendance, in addition to Piorkowski, the camp commander, and -Schnitzler of the staff of the Reichsfuehrung SS. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. -40_; _NO-437, Pros. Ex. 42_; _NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47_; _Tr. pp. 7086-7_.) - -After the arrangements with the camp authorities at Dachau had been -completed, the shipment of the low-pressure chamber from Berlin was the -next problem to overcome. As pointed out earlier, Weltz desired the -low-pressure chamber which was possessed by Ruff and Romberg for use in -the experiments at Dachau. It is interesting to note that Weltz had had -a low-pressure chamber available in his own institute from 1938 on (_Tr. -p. 7178._), and that Weltz testified that volunteers from his student -body or from the Luftwaffe were available. (_Tr. pp. 7180-83._) Despite -this, it was necessary to resort to the concentration camp for inmates -and, in order to conduct the experiments, a mobile pressure chamber had -to be brought down from the Ruff Institute in Berlin, as the -low-pressure chamber in the Weltz Institute was not mobile. The mobile -low-pressure chamber from Ruff’s Institute at Berlin was driven to -Weltz’ Institute in Munich and arrived in the late afternoon. This -chamber was driven to Munich by employees of the DVL and turned over to -Weltz. On the following day, SS drivers came from Dachau, received the -keys to the chamber and drove it to the concentration camp. (_Tr. p. -7199._) The purpose in camouflaging this activity was to deceive the -employees of the DVL because Weltz and Ruff did not want them to know -that the low-pressure chamber was to be used in an experimental program -at a concentration camp. This is borne out by the fact that a completely -new set of drivers came from the concentration camp to take the chamber -to Dachau. This particular action of secrecy is noticeable when it is -considered that Dachau is merely 12 kilometers from Munich and actually -the DVL drivers had to go out of their way to deliver the chamber to the -Weltz Institute. Ruff testified that the secrecy in the transfer of the -chamber to Dachau was for security reasons. (_Tr. p. 6550._) - -From the evidence thus far summarized, and indeed from Weltz’ own -admission, it is clear that he must be found guilty of the high-altitude -crimes committed in Dachau. This was a criminal undertaking from its -inception. It was known to all concerned that the proposed experiments -were certain to result in deaths and that they were to be performed on -nonvolunteers. That is proved by the very first letter to Himmler. Weltz -supported the ambition of his subordinate, Rascher, to perform the -experiments on behalf of the Weltz Institute. He secured the -collaboration of Ruff and Romberg. He obtained the consent of Hippke and -a research assignment from the Referat for Aviation Medicine under -Anthony and Becker-Freyseng. He took care of the technical arrangements -and participated in conferences with Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher which -decided on the experiments to be performed. Weltz did more in having the -experiments performed than anyone else. His guilt is clearly established -on this evidence alone. It is not disputed that Rascher was subordinated -to him until February 1942. Weltz’ main defense is that he had Rascher -transferred from his institute late in February 1942 and, hence, cannot -be held responsible for what happened thereafter. Even if true, this is -no defense. Weltz had long since participated in the criminal -enterprise. He cannot be heard to say that “Yes, I did all that, but I’m -not responsible for the actual consequences which my acts were expected -to bring about.” The deaths which occurred in these experiments were -foreseeable from the beginning. Weltz does not escape responsibility for -those deaths, even if it were true that Rascher was not subordinated to -him when they occurred. But that is not true, as the evidence proves. - -The actual date of the commencement of the experiments at Dachau was 22 -February 1942, which was recalled by the witness Neff because it was his -birthday. (_Tr. p. 606._) From this point on, the defendant Weltz takes -the position that he had no knowledge of the work and that, in fact, -Rascher was relieved from his command. Weltz admitted that it was his -obligation to supervise Rascher and that the existing arrangement -between Ruff and Weltz was that this was to be a joint undertaking. Ruff -exercised supervision over Romberg, and Weltz was to exercise -supervision over Rascher. Weltz conceded that he was Rascher’s -disciplinary superior and was responsible for the scientific programs to -which he assigned Rascher. (_Tr. p. 7088._) Despite this chain of -command and working agreement, Weltz takes the position that Rascher -endeavored to work independently and that he did not desire to report to -Weltz. (_Tr. pp. 7088-9._) It became necessary for Weltz to order -Rascher to report to him twice a week and, as a result of this order, -Weltz alleges that Rascher came to him in the middle of February and -that they had their first conversation since the meeting in Dachau and -on that occasion, Rascher informed Weltz that the experiments had not -even started yet and that he had nothing to report. (_Tr. p. 7089._) - -Weltz testified that Anthony, under whom Becker-Freyseng worked in the -Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, in Berlin, telephoned him to inquire how -the Dachau experiments were progressing and that he could only reply -that nothing had been reported to him. Rascher reported to him for the -second time, whereupon Weltz informed Rascher that a telephone call had -come through from Berlin and that he wanted to have some clarification -as to how things stood at Dachau. Rascher did not want to report -anything to Weltz at the second conversation, and Weltz maintains that -he told Rascher that he was going to Berlin to clear up the situation -and obtain a clear decision whether or not Rascher was to report to him. -Then, on the occasion of the third visit from Rascher, Weltz, expecting -a sharp argument, asked Wendt of his office to come into the room, and -on that occasion he confronted Rascher with the alternative either to -report to him or to leave the institute. Weltz asserts that at that time -Rascher showed him a telegram from Himmler, which read: “Experiments are -to be kept secret from everyone.” (_Tr. p. 7089._) Thereupon, Weltz -maintains that he ordered Rascher from his institute and that he then -composed a letter, together with Wendt, to the Luftgau and asked for -Rascher’s immediate transfer and that within a few days Rascher’s -assignment had ended. (_Tr. p. 7090._) - -The memorandum of Nini Rascher to Himmler of 24 February 1942 shows that -at that time Rascher was still subordinate to Weltz. (_NO-263, Pros. Ex. -47._) She reviewed the history of the experiments and pointed out that -on 24 July 1941 Rascher, Kottenhoff, and Weltz were to be in charge. -Kottenhoff was transferred to Romania in August and thereby excluded -from the group. She stated that it was Weltz’s task to initiate the -technical execution of the experiments. Apparently because of a fear of -moral objections on the part of Hippke, Weltz had postponed the -beginning of the experiments but had finally secured Ruff and Romberg to -collaborate with Rascher. A conference took place in Dachau between -Piorkowski, Schnitzler, Weltz, Rascher, Romberg, and Ruff. Weltz had -given the assurance that he would take care of the authorization for -Rascher. Mrs. Rascher complained that on 18 February, after Rascher had -carried out all the preparatory work, Weltz stated: “Now that you have -removed all obstacles from the path of Romberg with the SS, the -authorization must be handled differently.” Mrs. Rascher stated that -both Romberg and Rascher agreed that Weltz was not needed anymore and -that both opposed his attempts to oust Rascher in favor of himself. - -Weltz contended that the truth of the matter was that he wished to get -rid of Rascher, and that Mrs. Rascher had misrepresented this to Himmler -so that it would appear that he was trying to eliminate Rascher in order -to keep the work exclusively to himself. (_Tr. p. 7099._) There can be -no question that Mrs. Rascher was quite correct in her analysis of the -situation. What possible reason could Weltz have for desiring, just -before the experiments began, to eliminate Rascher unless he wished to -participate himself personally and thus secure a larger share of the -scientific credit? Certainly he had supported Rascher from the very -inception of the proposal to perform the experiments. Be that as it may, -the proof shows that Rascher continued to participate in the experiments -as a subordinate of Weltz. This is clearly proved by a file memorandum -of Schnitzler of the SS office in Munich, dated 28 April 1942. (_NO-264, -Pros. Ex. 60._) This memorandum shows that Rascher was still -subordinated to Weltz, and that Weltz was insisting on active -participation in the experiments and full responsibility. The RLM [Reich -Air Ministry] had inquired of Weltz how long the experiments would last, -and whether it was justifiable to detail a medical officer for so long. -Rascher, who was chafing under his subordination to Weltz, requested -that his assignment be changed to the DVL [German Aviation Research -Institute], Dachau Branch. - -Weltz’ only reaction to this document was that the date was wrong and -should read 28 February 1942 instead of 28 April 1942. (_Tr. p. 7099 -ff._) Weltz conceded on cross-examination that, assuming the date 28 -April 1942 was correct, then of course Rascher was still his subordinate -at that time. (_Tr. p. 7232._) The file memorandum of Sievers dated 3 -May 1942 settled this question beyond any doubt. This memorandum reads -as follows: - - “SS Untersturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher reported in Munich - on 29 April 1942 about the result of the conference with - Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz. Weltz requested that Dr. Rascher be - withdrawn if by Friday, 1 May 1942 he (Weltz) were not taken - into consultation regarding the experiments. The Reich Leader SS - was informed accordingly. He ordered SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff - on 30 April 1942 to send a telegram to Field Marshal Milch - requesting that Dr. Rascher be ordered to the German Aviation - Research Institute [Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt], - Dachau Branch, and there to be at the disposal of the Reich - Leader SS.” (_NO-1359, Pros. Ex. 493._) - -After having been confronted with this document Weltz in effect conceded -that his previous testimony about the transfer of Rascher had been, to -say the least of it, incorrect. He said: - - “Yes, now the entire matter looks somewhat different. If I had - this file note of Sievers in addition to my other documents, I - would have known that the note of Schnitzler was correct, and - that there must be another possibility to explain Mrs. Nini - Rascher’s letter. This letter, on the other hand, cannot be - explained now. I can only try to reconstruct the dates from the - documents which were available here, since I no longer know them - today.” (_Tr. p. 7239._) - -On redirect examination by his defense counsel, Weltz was asked again to -clarify the situation with respect to Rascher’s subordination, and he -replied: - - “Since my first attempt to clarify this contradiction came to - naught, I should not like to try again. I simply can see no way - to clarify it on the basis of the material before me.” (_Tr. p. - 7251._) - -In a letter of 20 May 1942 from Milch to Wolff it is again made evident -beyond any doubt that Rascher was subordinate to Weltz: - - “In reference to your telegram of 12 May our medical inspector - reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the - SS and Air Force at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation - of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable. However, - the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in regard to - perils at high sea, would be important. These have been prepared - in immediate agreement with the proper offices; Major (M. C.) - Weltz will be charged with the execution and Captain (M. C.) - Rascher will be made available until further orders in addition - to his duties within the Medical Corps of the Air Corps.” - (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._) - -Thus it is clear that Weltz must be held responsible for the numerous -murders which resulted during the high-altitude experiments in Dachau. -Not only did he participate in plans and enterprises involving the -commission of these experiments, but he also was the direct superior of -Rascher who, together with Ruff and Romberg, actually executed the -experiments. - - _Status of Prisoners Used in the Experiments_ - -After Weltz had successfully secured the collaboration of Ruff and -Romberg, he held a meeting at his institute in Munich late in December -1941, or early in January 1942. (_Tr. p. 6657_; _Tr. p. 7086_.) Ruff, -Romberg, Weltz, and Rascher attended this meeting primarily to lay the -groundwork for the technical arrangements necessary to perform the work -at Dachau. It is alleged by all the defendants that the question -regarding the status of the prisoners to be used was discussed and that -Rascher had assured them that the subjects would be exclusively -volunteers. (_Tr. p. 7086_; _Tr. p. 6232_; _Tr. p. 6869_.) In fact, the -defendants state that Rascher exhibited a communication from Himmler -which provided that the subjects must be volunteers under all -circumstances. (_Tr. p. 6869._) Unfortunately, this letter has not been -produced by the defense. Needless to say, the defendants take the -position that such experiments were to be performed on habitual and -condemned criminals and that considerations were to be offered to said -“volunteers” in the event of their surviving the experiments. As a -matter of fact, Romberg explicitly states that he saw the “Himmler -letter” and he was able to observe the words “criminal” and “volunteer” -therein. (_Tr. p. 6870._) - -The assertion on the part of the defendants that Himmler had ordered -that the criminals used be volunteers is ridiculous and incredible when -one considers that Himmler instructed Rascher to pardon these -unfortunate inmates only if they could be recalled to life after having -been subjected to the type of experiments outlined in Rascher’s first -interim report, wherein it is shown that the experimental subjects had -stopped breathing altogether and their chests had been cut open, i. e., -autopsy had been actually performed on them. (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. -49._) - -In this instance, Himmler graciously stated: - - “3. Considering the long-continued action of the heart, the - experiments should be specifically exploited in such a manner as - to determine whether these men could be recalled to life. Should - such an experiment succeed, then, of course, the person - condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for - life.” (_1971-B-PS, Pros. Ex. 51._) - -It is absurd to give any weight to the allegation that Himmler provided -that the subjects were to be volunteers. These men knew that volunteers -could not be secured and that was the very reason for going to Himmler. -This is shown in the letter from Rascher to Himmler requesting that -criminals be made available due to the fact that “nobody is -volunteering.” - -The defendant Ruff admitted on the stand that the experiments conducted -on themselves and colleagues in Berlin concerned altitudes up to 12,000 -meters and that the question of what would happen between 12,000 and -20,000 meters was subsequently investigated at Dachau. (_Tr. p. 6679._) -It is obvious, therefore, that Ruff, Romberg, Weltz, and Rascher were -unwilling to perform such investigations on themselves. - -The evidence has proved that the subjects used in the high-altitude -experiments were not, with a few minor exceptions, volunteers. The -inmates were simply selected at random in the camp and forced to undergo -the experiments. Russians, Poles, Jews of various nationalities, and -Germans were used. Russian prisoners of war were included, as were many -political prisoners. Approximately 180 to 200 inmates were experimented -on, about 70 to 80 being killed as a result. Not more than 40 of these -had been “condemned to death.” Among those killed were political -prisoners. (_Tr. pp. 613-18_; _also Tr. p. 432_.) This testimony of -Neff, who was the inmate assistant in the experiments and who identified -Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz, is corroborated by Rascher’s cable asking if -Himmler’s amnesty rule applied to Russians and Poles who had been -extensively used in the experiments. (_1971-D-PS, Pros. Ex. 52._) The -nationality and status of inmates were easily discernible from the -badges worn on their uniforms. Ruff and Romberg could have told from -these that foreign nationals and political prisoners were being used. -(_Tr. pp. 616-7._) - -The witness Neff’s testimony reveals that approximately 10 prisoners -were selected as permanent, experimental subjects, but they were not -volunteers. (_Tr. pp. 611, 622, and 430._) There were, however, a few -“volunteers” according to Neff. He stated that “there were certain -volunteers for these experiments, because Rascher promised certain -persons that they would be released from the camp if they underwent -these experiments.” (_Tr. p. 614._) Neff clearly pointed out that in -view of the way the prisoner subjects were selected and used it was not -possible to know who were volunteers, if any, and who were not -volunteers. (_Tr. pp. 606-26._) They were not brought in and used as a -separate group. Moreover, the evidence shows that these promises were -not kept. (_Tr. p. 615._) The only evidence of a release is the case of -Sabota, as outlined by Neff, and in that case he was sent to an -undesirable special SS commando group. No death sentences were commuted. - -The defense claims for Ruff and Romberg that the experiments at Dachau -were divided into two groups. The first group, the so-called -Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments, was noncriminal, while the second -group, the Rascher experiments, encompassed all the crimes. They contend -that the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments were conducted independently -of the Rascher experiments and that the 10 original subjects mentioned -by Neff and Vieweg were used exclusively for the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher -experiments. Despite the testimony of the witnesses and the weight of -the documentary evidence, they would have the Tribunal believe that by a -wondrous working of fate these were all volunteers and no crimes -occurred. This defense is of course inapplicable to Weltz. Rascher was -subordinated to and subject to his orders. - -It should be noted that Romberg and Rascher who tested themselves in the -altitude chamber at Dachau with an air pressure equivalent to 12,500 and -13,500 meters altitude respectively, for 30 to 40 minutes, discontinued -these experiments on themselves because of intense pain. (_NO-402, Pros. -Ex. 66._) Yet, these men proceeded, as proved by their own joint report, -to conduct experiments on prisoners which they would not perform on -themselves. - -The experimenters took no responsibility or even interest in seeing to -it that the alleged promises made to the subjects to induce them to -“volunteer” were kept. (_Tr. p. 6993._) Although Romberg said he had no -channel to Himmler, he also admitted he visited Himmler with Rascher in -July 1942. (_Tr. pp. 7015-6._) - -In this connection, we must consider the convenient line of the defense. -By limiting the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments to the 10 subjects, we -find that they further allege that no deaths occurred in those -experiments as opposed to a considerable number of deaths in the Rascher -work. But the witness Neff, in describing the first day of the -experiments, emphatically stated that the first series of experiments -_was not carried out on volunteers_. Furthermore, the defendant Ruff was -also present during these experiments. (_Tr. p. 622._) The defendants’ -contention that the experiments were in two groups is _explicitly -denied_ by Neff. He testified that Romberg not only experimented with -Rascher on the original 10 subjects, but also on a large number of other -prisoners. The distinction fabricated by the defendants cannot possibly -be credited in the light of Neff’s testimony. On being asked the -question whether Romberg experimented only on the 10 original subjects, -Neff replied: - - “Experiments were conducted not only with these ten persons but, - for example, in a series of experiments which Romberg also - conducted on a large number of other prisoners. The distinction - which the defense counsel tries to make between experiments - included in the report to the Luftgau or of death—it is - impossible for me to make this distinction and to distinguish - between those which fell into one category or the other.” (_Tr. - p. 691._) - -Which is to be believed, the testimony of Neff, plus one’s common sense, -or the self-serving statements of the defendants? This is a question the -Tribunal must answer. There is no such thing as half a murderer. These -defendants are responsible for those murders or they are not -responsible. There is not one scintilla of evidence to support the -ridiculous contention that a group of volunteers, segregated for use by -Romberg, wore different colored shirts so he could tell them apart and -were treated with the greatest deference. But that is just what Ruff and -Romberg ask the Tribunal to find. It is absolutely impossible in the -face of the record. - -This, alleged disassociation of Ruff and Romberg from the “crimes -committed exclusively by Rascher” is in complete contradiction to the -acts of these defendants during the experiments, which after all speak -much louder than their present testimony. Neff testified that Romberg -personally witnessed at least five deaths during the experiments, and -that he made no effort to stop them nor did he even protest after the -event. (_Tr. p. 619._) Romberg admitted seeing three deaths and that he -knew that five to ten other murders took place in his absence. (_NO-476, -Pros. Ex. 40._) The first death Romberg saw, he said, occurred in April. -He reported this to Ruff. _Yet the experiments were not discontinued._ -They went on to the end of June and still more deaths occurred which -Romberg saw. _To say the least of it, these defendants made themselves a -party to murder by continuing the experiments._ This is true no matter -how innocent they may have been up to the first death. They were duty -bound to stop the experiments immediately, remove the chamber, and force -a court martial of Rascher. They did none of these simple and obvious -things. They did not for the very reason that deaths were expected from -the very beginning and were a part of the experimental plan. Romberg saw -these men die and did absolutely nothing. It was within his power to -save them at the time. He said he was operating the electrocardiograph. -He knew precisely by their heart action when the subjects were in danger -of dying. He also knew this from his knowledge of reaction to high -altitudes. He could see and read the pressure gauges. He could have -turned the pressure down and saved their lives by simply moving the -gauge which was within arm’s reach. He was a bigger man than Rascher. -Force could have been used if necessary. Not only did he do nothing -while the helpless victims died before his very eyes, but he assisted in -the autopsies. - -After all these murders had occurred and were known to them, Ruff and -Romberg still went on. They issued a joint report on the experiments in -the name of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher in July 1942. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. -66._) They were still collaborating with this admitted murderer and gave -him the cover of their scientific reputation. Romberg received a medal -for his work in the experiments on the recommendation of Rascher. -(_1607-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 65._) Romberg was still supporting Rascher in -September 1942 and was to have made an oral report to Milch on the -experiments with Rascher. He wrote a memorandum on Rascher’s behalf -explaining that the report was not given because Milch was unable to -receive them at the scheduled time. This same memorandum, signed by -Romberg, proves that _he was anxious to continue high-altitude -experiments with Rascher and asked for Milch’s permission_. - -He wrote: - - “Oberstarzt Kalk stated that he was willing to report to the - State Secretary (Milch) our wishes concerning the distribution - of the report and the continuation of the experiments. * * * - Oberstarzt Kalk had transmitted, still on 11 September, our - wishes concerning distribution and confirmation of the - experiments to the State Secretary. The State Secretary had - approved the distribution schedule, and said that a continuation - of the experiment was not urgent.” (_NO-224, Pros. Ex. 76._) - -In the meantime, the murderous freezing experiments had been started -with the Luftwaffe team of Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher. Ruff, -Romberg, and Weltz all heard the report of those experiments in -Nuernberg in October 1942. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex. 93._) Hippke himself -wrote his special thanks to Himmler on 8 October 1942, and said: “When -the work will need once more your sympathetic assistance, may I be -allowed to get in touch with you again through Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher?” -(_NO-289, Pros. Ex. 72._) - - * * * * * - - _Analysis of the Experiments_ - -The experiments at Dachau in the field of high-altitude research were -conducted to determine human reactions to altitudes above 12,000 meters. -The defendant Romberg stated that four series of experiments were -conducted (_a_) slow descent without oxygen, (_b_) slow descent with -oxygen, (_c_) falling without oxygen, and (_d_) falling with oxygen. -(_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) The first two tests were designed to simulate -descent with parachute open while the latter two a free fall from an -airplane before the parachute opens. As pointed out in Dr. Rascher’s -first interim report on the experiments, an additional problem was to be -solved, namely, the determination whether the theoretically established -norms pertaining to the length of life of human beings breathing air -with only a small portion of oxygen and subjected to low pressure -correspond with the results obtained by practical experience. This -interim report of Rascher’s states as follows: - - “2. Experiments testing the length of life of a human being - above the normal breathing limits (4, 5, 6 km.) have not been - conducted at all, since it has been a foregone conclusion that - the human experimental subject (Versuchsperson-VP) would suffer - death.” - - The experiments conducted by myself _and Dr. Romberg_ proved the - following: - - “Experiments on parachute jumps proved that the lack of oxygen - and the low atmospheric pressure at 12 or 13 km. altitude did - not cause death. Altogether 15 extreme experiments of this type - were carried out in which none of VP died. Very severe bends - together with unconsciousness occurred, but completely normal - functions of the senses returned when a height of 7 km. was - reached on descent. Electrocardiograms registering during the - experiments did show certain irregularities, but by the time the - experiments were over the curves had returned to normal and they - did not indicate any abnormal changes during the following days. - The extent to which deterioration of the organism may occur due - to continuously repeated experiments can only be established at - the end of the series of experiments. _The extreme fatal - experiments will be carried out on specially selected VP’s - otherwise it would not be possible to exercise the rigid control - so extraordinarily important for practical purposes._” [Emphasis - supplied.] (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._) - -Thus, it is clear that the experiments were planned and executed with -the _intention_ that some were to terminate fatally. This report covered -the period up to the first week in April and mention of deaths and -autopsies is made. This quite obviously was the instance when Romberg -says he saw his first death and autopsy, although he tends to place the -date as the latter part of April. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) If the -experiments had been stopped there the lives of many subjects would have -been saved. - -The defendants argue that, while the experiments may have killed -persons, they did not involve torture and pain. This is on the theory -that the subjects lost consciousness before any sensation of pain. This -anomalous defense is completely disproved by the photographic exhibits -showing the expressions of pain of the subjects. (_NO-610, Pros. Ex. -41._) as well as the defendants’ own report on the experiments. -(_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) The reaction of one subject was described in -terms such as “severe altitude sickness, spasmodic convulsions”. In a -self-experiment by Romberg and Rascher, the latter’s reactions were -described as follows: - - “After 10 minutes stay at this altitude, pains began on the - right side with a spastic paralytic condition of the right leg - which increased continually as though Ra’s [Rascher’s] whole - right side were being crushed between two presses. At the same - time there were most severe headaches as though the skull were - being burst apart. The pains became continually more severe so - that at last the discontinuation of the experiment became - necessary.” (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) - -There is no case on record where an experiment on an inmate was -discontinued because of pain. - -Ruff and Romberg take the position that they would be most unwilling to -kill prisoners in the course of an experiment. They insist that their -experiments with Rascher were concerned with the problem of explosive -decompression and on parachute descent from high altitudes, whereas -Rascher alone worked on sojourn or a more prolonged stay at high -altitudes, and that it was in Rascher’s experiments that prisoners were -killed. This again is the artificial division of the experiments into -the criminal and noncriminal which has already been proved to be -spurious. But here again, the two self-experiments which Ruff, Romberg, -and Rascher included in their joint final report as mentioned above -_were experiments on prolonged stay at high altitude, a subject which -they now claim was exclusively Rascher’s_. The only reason that this -experiment did not end fatally was the fact that it was interrupted in -time because of intense pain. Moreover, on page 11 of the final report -by Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz the following is said: “This is worthy of -special attention because in this case a person has fully recovered -mentally at an altitude of 8.3 km. (27,230 ft.), after 3 minutes of the -most severe lack of oxygen, _while in altitude endurance experiments_ at -this altitude severe altitude sickness sets in after about 3 minutes.” -[Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) Here, again, it is proved -from their own report that Ruff and Romberg, as well as Rascher, were -concerned with sojourn at high altitudes. - -Experiments, in which prisoners were killed, are reported in Rascher’s -report to Himmler of 11 May 1942. (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._) Some -prisoners were killed by keeping them at 12,000 meters without oxygen -for 30 minutes; one was killed at 20,000 meters when exposed there for -about 6 minutes without oxygen. These prisoners were autopsied to -ascertain if bubbles of gas, called air embolism in Rascher’s report of -11 May 1942, were present in the blood vessels of the brain and other -organs when dissected under water. Some “Jewish professional criminals” -who had committed “Rassenschande” (race pollution)[18] were killed for -another reason: - - “To find out whether the severe psychic and physical effects, as - mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the - following was done: After relative recuperation from such a - parachute descending test had taken place, however before - regaining consciousness, some VP’s were kept under water until - they died. When the skull and the cavities of the breast and of - the abdomen had been opened under water, an enormous amount of - air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary - vessels and the vessels of the liver and the intestines, etc.” - (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._) - -It should be noted that these murders were committed in connection with -the _parachute descending tests_, not prolonged stay at high altitudes, -and this was the very subject being studied by Ruff and Romberg. Romberg -testified that he was present at the death of three of these prisoners, -one in April and two in May 1942, and witnessed an autopsy of one, in -which gas bubbles were present in the blood vessels of the brain. He -reported these deaths to Ruff. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) Neff testified -Romberg was present in five cases where fatalities occurred (_Tr. pp. -619, 692._) and Romberg admitted that he knew that five to ten other -experimental subjects were killed while he was not present. (_NO-476, -Pros. Ex. 40._) Neff stated that Romberg actively participated in the -majority of the experiments. He observed the experiments, took notes, -and studied the electrocardiogram and thus was able to determine when an -experimental subject in the chamber was about to die. (_Tr. p. 651._) - -It is incredible that Dr. Ruff was not informed regarding the finding of -bubbles in the blood vessels of the brain since such observations in -human beings who have died following too rapid atmospheric decompression -is a very, very unique event, though bubbles had been observed many -times prior to 1942 in the blood vessels of laboratory animals. It is -inconceivable that Dr. Ruff, or anyone else in the field of aviation -medicine, had not heard of the bubble theory of the cause of joint -pains, coughing, blindness, or paralysis, or the symptoms of the -pressure drop sickness, which may occur on exposure to high altitude, -since this theory was well known in literature and text books of -aviation medicine available since 1938. How else would Rascher have had -occasion to look for the bubbles? He either learned of the theory during -a course in aviation medicine or was told about it by Ruff and Romberg, -who knew much more than Rascher about aviation medicine. - -It is fantastic that Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher did not have in mind the -observations of bubbles in the blood vessels of the murdered prisoners, -when, in the final joint report of 28 July 1942, they wrote: - - “In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the - actual cause of the severe mental disturbances and bodily - failures (paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon - post-hypoxemic twilight state remains something of a riddle. It - appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness - had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack”. (_NO-402, - Pros. Ex. 66._) - -It has been the theory for some time that the symptoms associated with -decompression or pressure-drop sickness may be due to the formation of -gas bubbles (air embolism) in the blood vessels of the brain or in the -regions of the joints or in the blood vessels of the lungs. When the -bubbles collect in the blood vessels of the brain, they are supposed to -cause a physical or mental disturbance or paralysis. When the gas -bubbles collect in the region of the joints, they are supposed to cause -pain in the region of the joints. When the bubbles collect in the blood -vessels in the lungs, they are supposed to cause the chokes or attacks -of coughing. That has been a theory that has been held for some 15 or 20 -years, and an expert in the field of aviation medicine could not have -been unaware of it. (_Tr. pp. 9098-9._) Since Rascher had observed -bubbles as is described in his report of 11 May 1942, and since Ruff and -Romberg had complete knowledge of the deaths, obviously these important -findings of Rascher on air embolism did not escape the attention of Ruff -and Romberg. It can only be concluded that these findings, which -resulted from intentioned deaths, form the basis of the paragraph quoted -above from the final report. Because of the nature of the subject -matter, and a prior knowledge of the observations in the autopsies in -the experiments, the ideas expressed in the paragraph quoted above -cannot be separated from those in the Rascher report of 11 May. So -testified the expert witness Dr. A. C. Ivy. (_Tr. p. 9151._) All of this -proves again that the testimony of Ruff and Romberg to the effect they -had nothing to do with the so-called “Rascher experiments” is completely -false. Even though deaths are not specifically mentioned in the joint -report of 28 July, it is clear from Dr. Ivy’s testimony that the -findings in the death cases form the basis for a part of that report. - -Ruff and Romberg would have the Tribunal believe that the experiments -were completed and the chamber removed from Dachau by 20 May 1942. Since -Romberg knew of and reported on the deaths to Ruff in April, there -clearly was no excuse whatever to leave the chamber in Dachau for even -another day. But according to their own story, it stayed until 20 May -and Romberg saw two more men killed. They attempted to gloss over their -criminal participation in these later murders by saying that the chamber -could not be moved without orders from the Luftwaffe Medical Inspector. -Be that as it may, such a technical violation of moving the chamber -without orders is hardly comparable to the crime of leaving the chamber -for further experiments by a man whom they admit they knew to have been -a murderer. Indeed, any decent superior who was not himself a party to -the crime, as they actually were, would undoubtedly have court-martialed -Ruff and Romberg for leaving the chamber there, not to speak of Rascher. - -But it is not true that the chamber left Dachau on 20 May 1942 as they -perjuriously stated. They seized upon this date from Milch’s letter to -Wolff stating that the chamber was needed elsewhere. (_343-A-PS, Pros. -Ex. 62._) There clearly was an intention to transfer the chamber, but it -was _not_ in fact moved and this was undoubtedly due to the joint -efforts of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher. Romberg was anxious to continue -his criminal work with Rascher in September 1942 as has been pointed out -above. In any event, on 4 June 1942, Milch authorized retention of the -chamber in Dachau _for two more months_. (_NO-261, Pros. Ex. 63._) On 25 -June this order was passed on to Rascher by Heckenstaller, adjutant to -Wolff, reference being made to a letter of 5 June from Rascher. -(_NO-284, Pros. Ex. 64._) These documents prove beyond doubt that the -chamber remained in Dachau until July 1942. - -The testimony of Neff not only proves that the experiments continued -until July 1942 but also that Romberg was presented with a remarkable -opportunity to discontinue the experiments without any trouble whatever. -Neff stated that Romberg told him in the latter part of May that the -chamber was to be transferred (undoubtedly as a result of Milch’s letter -of 20 May which was later countermanded) and, under the impression that -Romberg might not be in favor of any continuation of the experiments, he -sabotaged the chamber by breaking a glass barometer in order to make -sure the chamber would be sent away. Instead of seizing this opportunity -for stopping the experiments by removing the damaged chamber, Romberg -rushed to Berlin, obtained spare parts, and in a matter of 2 weeks had -the chamber functioning again for more murderous experiments. (_Tr. pp. -623-4._) The chamber was used for another 3 weeks after it was repaired -and five persons were killed on the last day of the experiments. (_Tr. -p. 624._) Although the defense attacked Neff on cross-examination -concerning the sabotage of the chamber (_Tr. p. 663_), by the time -Romberg took the stand they admitted the chamber was damaged but moved -the whole incident to the month of May instead of June. (_Tr. p. 6905._) -This was obviously done on the theory that the Tribunal could be -deceived into believing that very few experiments could have been -conducted in May since they contend the chamber was moved on 20 May. But -the documents and Neff’s testimony clearly established that the chamber -was there until July. Moreover, it matters little whether the chamber -was damaged in May or June. Romberg in no event took the opportunity to -stop the experiments on the ground of unavailable spare parts, although -this opportunity would not have been needed if he really wanted to -discontinue them. He need have done nothing more complex than to have -sent the chamber away or left himself. - -Ruff’s and Romberg’s guilt is beyond doubt when we consider that they -did not take the opportunity to withdraw after the first death of an -experimental subject in April 1942. Romberg admitted his presence at the -death of this first subject. (_Tr. p. 6924._) He was studying the -electrocardiogram at the time of the experiments (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. -40_), but he would have the Tribunal find that he was an innocent -bystander who was privileged to do nothing. This was just another “SS -experiment” according to Romberg. But Romberg admitted that he was -working the electrocardiogram and was studying the point of light that -follows the heart. When he saw that the critical point had been reached, -he said he spoke to Rascher (_Tr. p. 6927_), but to no avail as Rascher -continued the experiment until death resulted. This testimony of assumed -impotence when a man was slowly killed before his eyes is an insult to -one’s intelligence. Romberg was the senior scientist and was fully aware -of the fact that the danger zone had been reached as he was thoroughly -familiar with the equipment being used. He has outlined for the Tribunal -the proximity of the electrocardiogram to the controls of the chamber -(_Tr. p. 6929_), and it is inconceivable that Romberg could not have -taken the necessary action to have spared this experimental subject’s -life if he had so desired. The inescapable fact is that these deaths -were part of the plan and Romberg not only had no desire to interfere -but was very much interested in the cause of death through air embolism. - -Assuming that Romberg was opposed to this fatal experiment, it is -impossible to understand why he did not take the appropriate action to -have Rascher prosecuted for this premeditated murder. The fact of the -matter is that Romberg merely reported this death to Ruff (_Tr. p. -6932_), and no appropriate action was taken by Ruff either. Although -alleging an objection to this fatality, Romberg admits participation in -the autopsy of the unfortunate victim. This autopsy clearly bore out the -fact that air embolism was the cause of death. When asked if he -participated in this autopsy, Romberg answered, “Yes, I watched one -autopsy. That was my duty.” (_Tr. p. 6924._) Romberg testified that he -saw two other deaths and that air embolism also caused those. (_Tr. pp. -6925-6._) - -Ruff and Romberg lay great stress on the point that deaths are not -mentioned in the joint report of 28 July 1942 of Romberg, Ruff, and -Rascher. This, of course, is a very understandable omission, but it in -no way proves that they are not responsible for those murders. Indeed, -the joint report of 28 July 1942 (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66_) is identical -with Rascher’s report of 11 May 1942 (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61_) except for -the specific mentioning of the deaths. For example, paragraph 3 of the -Rascher report is a summary of part III-1, pages 3 to 18, and part -III-2, pages 18 to 19 of the joint final report. Paragraph 4 of -Rascher’s report contains results set out in part III-4, pages 21 to 22, -of the joint final report. Paragraph 5 of Rascher’s report is identical -with part III-3, pages 19 to 21, of the joint final report. Paragraph 6 -of the Rascher report where the pervitin experiments are mentioned is -alluded to in the pervitin data in the joint final report on page 18. -Paragraph 7 of the Rascher report contains the conclusions incorporated -in the joint final report and gives details on the gas bubble data which -are referred to on pages 16 to 18 of the joint final report, but from -which is omitted reference to the autopsy results of the murdered -prisoners. These various passages were compared by the witness Ivy and -he concluded that they refer to the same subject matter. (_Tr. p. -9097._) - -Ruff attempts to explain the omission of mention of deaths in the final -report on the ground that the deaths did not occur as a result of their -experiments on rescue from high altitudes (i. e., parachute descending -tests), but rather in Rascher’s own experiments with which they had -nothing to do (i. e., prolonged stay at high altitudes). (_Tr. p. -6592._) It has already been proved that the basic premise to this -spurious argument is completely false, since Ruff and Romberg themselves -were not interested in sojourn at high altitudes. The self-experiments -of Romberg and Rascher were just such tests and they are specifically -mentioned in the final report. These involved a stay of 30 to 40 minutes -at altitudes between 12 and 13.5 kilometers (39,400 to 44,290 feet). But -so also is the minor premise wrong. _Deaths were deliberately brought -about in the course of the parachute descending tests._ In these tests -it had been noted that the subjects suffered from spasmodic and clonic -convulsions together with paralysis. This is reported in paragraph 3 of -Rascher’s memorandum of 11 May 1942 on the experiments and also on pages -13 through 18 of the final report. In his memorandum, Rascher stated: - - “To find out whether the severe psychic and physical effects, as - mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the - following was done: After relative recuperation from such _a - parachute descending test_ had taken place, however before - regaining consciousness, some VP’s were kept under water until - they died. When the skull and the cavities of the breast and of - the abdomen had been opened under water, an enormous amount of - air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary - vessels, and the vessels of the liver and the intestines, etc.” - [Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._) - -_This proves beyond any doubt that murders were committed in the -parachute descending tests of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher._ Ruff again -tried to deceive the Tribunal by testifying that it was substantially -impossible for air embolism to form in parachute descending tests. This -is obviously disproved by the statement of Rascher quoted above and by -the reference in the final report, already mentioned above, which -alludes to this same problem. But the lie was also squarely nailed by -the expert witness Ivy, who testified that it was possible for air -embolism to form in subjects who were at altitudes above 12,000 meters -(39,400 feet) only 3 minutes, that is to say, subjects who bailed out at -15,000 meters. Bubbles may form as low as 30,000 feet. (_Tr. p. 9102._) -Thus, the defense that no deaths occurred during the experiments -concerning rescue from high altitudes is completely spurious. - -Moreover, it should be noted that while the joint final report does not -describe any of the death cases, it also _does not deny_ that deaths -occurred. On page 25 of the original, it says: “In conclusion, we must -make it particularly clear that, in view of the extreme experimental -conditions in this whole experimental series, no fatality and no lasting -injury _due to oxygen lack occurred_.” (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) The -deaths described in Rascher’s report quoted above _were not due to lack -of oxygen_ but were deliberate killings to investigate air embolism. - -But even the experiments which Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz admit were -planned and performed under their responsibility were highly dangerous -to the life and health of the subjects. Both Ruff and Romberg agreed -that 12,000 meters was the upper limit of safety and that experiments of -the type they performed above that altitude were hazardous. The -description of the reaction of the subjects as set forth in the final -report proves that the subject suffered severe convulsions and prolonged -periods of disorientation. The expert witness Ivy pointed out that the -experiments described in the final report of Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz -were highly dangerous for the following reasons: - - “I consider them to be dangerous because of the prolonged period - of unconsciousness to which the subjects were exposed. For - example, they were unconscious for periods of around twenty - minutes, and they were disoriented for periods of around thirty - to ninety minutes. That is a dangerous period of oxygen lack to - which to expose the brain. I agree that * * * the - electrocardiogram demonstrates that the heart of these subjects - was not momentarily affected or significantly affected by this - prolonged exposure to oxygen lack. But these experiments do not - show, or the results do not show that the cells of the brain - were not injured. One of the higher faculties of the brain is - learning, and we know that the learning process is rather - sensitive to oxygen lack, and the only way to check against the - possibility of damage of the learning mechanism by prolonged - exposure to oxygen lack would have been to have determined the - I. Q. of these subjects or the ability of these subjects to - learn before and after the subjects were exposed to such a - prolonged period of oxygen lack.” (_Tr. p. 9036._) - -Dr. Ivy testified that the experiments described in the final report had -reached the physiological limit and that work was being done in a very -dangerous and hazardous zone as far as the welfare of the experimental -subjects was concerned. He said that he should be reluctant to perform -such experiments even on himself and that he would prefer to depend upon -that degree of accuracy which could be obtained from calculations of the -results of animal experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9081, 9112, and 9197._) - -Finally it should be noted that the experiments were neither necessary -nor a scientific success. “Necessity of the State” has been much used by -the defendants as if it were a defense. This is clearly unfounded even -though necessity, military or otherwise, be assumed. It is to be -supposed that each defendant _thought_ there was some necessity to what -he was doing. This is no defense. Rascher thought the same thing. It was -deemed necessary to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of persons in -concentration camps. It was deemed necessary to murder millions of Jews. -The slave labor policy was bottomed on necessity. If that is a defense, -then these trials lose all meaning. But, on the other hand if it is -proved that these experiments were not necessary, not of scientific -value, then it makes the guilty even more guilty. The brutal sacrifice -of human life was to no avail. And such was the case here. Hippke, Chief -of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, when writing his thanks to -Himmler on 8 October 1942 said the following: - - “It is true that no conclusions as to the practice of - parachuting can be drawn for the time being, as a very important - factor, namely, cold has so far not yet been taken into - consideration; it places an extraordinary excess burden on the - entire body and its vital movements, so that the results in - actual practice will very likely prove to be far more - unfavorable than in the present experiments.” (_NO-289, Pros. - Ex. 72._) - -When asked his opinion concerning the necessity for the typical -experiment described on page 13 of the final report of Ruff, Romberg, -and Rascher, the witness Ivy testified: - - “I do not believe that it was necessary to do this experiment in - order to determine the equipment to supply aviators who have to - bail out of an airplane at high altitude.” (_Tr. p. 9035._) - -The witness Ivy stated further that the information which was obtained -by these experiments on concentration camp inmates could have been -obtained from animals as indicated by the results of Lutz’ and Wendt’s -animal work referred to in the final report. The differences in the -reactions of human subjects and animals, as reported by Lutz and Wendt, -were not sufficient to warrant the carrying out of these hazardous -experiments on human beings. (_Tr. p. 9036._) - - * * * * * - - c. Selections From the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT RUFF_[19] - - * * * * * - -Certainly Dr. Ruff gave his agreement and approval to high-altitude -tests with a low-pressure chamber of the Reich Air Ministry being -performed by his collaborator of many years, Dr. Romberg, together with -Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher, in a concentration camp, using concentration camp -inmates as experimental subjects. He agreed after the performance of -urgent experiments in the Dachau concentration camp had already been -agreed upon in principle and approved by Professor Dr. Hippke and -Professor Dr. Weltz. - -Therefore, the question arises whether these high-altitude experiments -were already illegal for the reason that they were performed on -concentration camp inmates. - -This question must be denied for only such inmates were used for the -experiments as had volunteered for them, or who at least were regarded -by Ruff as volunteers and could be regarded as such in view of the whole -situation, and no one could reproach him for having erred in this -respect because other persons had perhaps deceived him about these -facts. - -There are, however, some witnesses who apparently maintain that the -prisoners used in the Ruff-Romberg experiments were not volunteers. -Above all the witnesses Vieweg and Neff are of this opinion. - -During his direct examination on 13 December 1946 the witness Vieweg -mentioned a series of various experiments which were performed at the -Dachau concentration camp. Referring in particular to the high-altitude -experiments there, which alone can be considered in the indictment -against Dr. Ruff, he states firstly that high-altitude experiments with -the low-pressure chamber were performed on 10 patients; “for these -experiments frequently patients and also male nurses were used who -during the experiments were seen in the corridor of the adjacent -hospital ward.” - -By this Vieweg apparently wanted to point out that these “patients” and -“also the nurses” were not volunteers. These 10 “official experimental -subjects” had been well fed and supplied with smokes, but in addition to -these 10 so-called “exhibition patients”, a large number of people had -been selected from the camp who were again and again sent to the -high-altitude experiment institute. That happened to a block leader who -probably had pneumonia a few hours later and ended in the sick bay -mortuary. The same happened in the malaria department of the witness -Vieweg. One day a patient who had some differences with Zill, the leader -of the camp, concerning protective custody, was sent to the experimental -institute, and he (Vieweg) found him in the mortuary the next day. He -(Vieweg) knows by hearsay that, “a great number of patients who took -part in these experiments died, and ended up in the sick bay mortuary.” -(_German Tr. p. 476._) - -Between the lines of this rather obscure and vague statement one may -read that, according to Vieweg’s statement, these further experimental -subjects, and especially those who had died during the experiments, did -not belong to the 10 “official experimental subjects” and had not been -volunteers. However, in the direct examination by the prosecution the -witness Vieweg did not express himself explicitly about this alleged -compulsion of the so-called experimental subjects. - -During the cross-examination by the defense counsel of Dr. Romberg, the -witness Vieweg explained his expression, the “10 exhibition patients”. -(_German Tr. p. 485._) The 10 selected patients who were used for the -high-altitude tests had been accommodated in a special room and had been -well nourished; they had been exhibited, and they had been presented to -Himmler during one of his visits. Himmler made them big promises; if -they survived, they would be set free * * * these 10 patients had been -drawn into the experiments * * * they had told him (Vieweg) that they -were very exhausted by the whole affair, but as far as he could remember -“they all survived” (_German Tr. pp. 486, 489_). On being questioned the -witness Vieweg repeatedly stated (_German Tr. pp. 486, 487, 489_), that -as far as he could remember Dr. Rascher had carried out the experiments -himself. The only thing Vieweg could state about participation of -“Luftwaffe officers” in these high-altitude experiments, was that some -Luftwaffe officers “had also been there”. But he could not say anything -about the actual participation of the Luftwaffe officers. From the -description on page 501 (German Transcript) these two gentlemen of the -Luftwaffe certainly were not identical with Buff and Romberg. He himself -(Vieweg) had only talked with these 10 official experimental subjects, -the so-called “exhibition patients”, but not with any of the other -experimental subjects. He himself had never observed that these other -prisoners were used for high-altitude tests, but he had been told about -it frequently. Vieweg repeatedly stated that the 10 official -experimental subjects had still been alive at the end of the experiments -(_German Tr. p. 489_), that no deaths had occurred among them. - -So much for the statement of the witness Vieweg. It is, of course, -unreliable because it does not establish a clear distinction between the -high-altitude experiments authorized by Ruff and carried out with the -cooperation of Dr. Romberg, and other experiments in the low-pressure -chamber which Rascher undertook by order of Himmler, without the -authorization or previous knowledge of Dr. Ruff and without the -cooperation of Dr. Romberg. This distinction, which is of decisive -importance in judging this case, only appears in Vieweg’s statement -insofar as the 10 official experimental subjects (the so-called -“exhibition patients”) were exclusively used for the first experiments -(Ruff-Romberg-Rascher), whereas other prisoners were used for the other -experiments (by Rascher alone). Of course, the significance of this -distinction was not clear to Vieweg at that time and could not be -observed by him because Vieweg did not know anything at all about Dr. -Ruff’s activity and since he did not know anything at all about the -agreements which had been reached between Dr. Ruff and Dr. Rascher. - -Apart from these obscurities one has to regard the statement of the -witness Vieweg with the greatest reserve for another reason. Vieweg is -the witness who, with unusual unscrupulousness, committed plain perjury -in the sessions of 13 and 16 December 1946. He tried first (_German Tr. -p. 474_) to give the impression that he had been sent to the -concentration camp without any reason, that he had been committed for -“political protective security”. This representation of the witness -Vieweg is completely in accordance with his previous behavior, because -formerly he had generally pretended to be politically persecuted—an -innocent man who had been thrown into a concentration camp without ever -having learned the reason. Under this false pretense he offered himself -as witness for this trial, and because of this misrepresentation he was -presented as a witness by the prosecution whom he had deceived. However, -during cross-examination, Vieweg had to admit that in 1934 he was -sentenced to 4 and to 6 years’ penal servitude for forgery of documents -and fraud, that is to say for common crimes which, as a rule, have -nothing to do with politics. On repeated questioning the witness Vieweg -stated again and again (_German Tr. pp. 483 ff._) that he could not -remember having received any other previous conviction in addition to -those 4 and 6 years’ penal servitude. He insisted on this statement, -even though he had been repeatedly reminded that he was under oath. His -stereotype phrase was, he could not remember; he even emphasized that he -had deposed to this or that under oath (_German Tr. p. 484_), and he -continued to insist on his statement, even though he was told that his -previous convictions could be determined without difficulty since his -files had been sent for. - -Now, let us compare the testimony given under oath with the list of -convictions of the witness Vieweg, which was submitted as Document Ruff -24. - -Besides the 4 and 6 years of penal servitude which he admitted, the -witness Vieweg received in reality not less than 6 prison terms prior to -1934, among them 5 years’ penal servitude and 5 years’ loss of civil -rights for repeated grave thefts. - -This extract from the penal register shows why the witness Vieweg had -such a “bad memory”. He never was politically persecuted, as he -pretended to be, but he is the type of incorrigible professional -criminal who could not be changed or educated even by the most severe -penalty. If anybody deserved to be sent to a concentration camp it was -this Vieweg. But even the 5 years he spent in the concentration camp did -not help. For now he is again in prison, in Bamberg, where charges were -brought against him on 5 March 1947 at the District Court for forgery of -documents and fraud, as well as for five cases of repeated theft, for -attempted abortion, for active bribery, and for black market dealings. - -This incorrigible professional criminal allowed himself to be presented -here as a star witness for the prosecution against an honorable, -blameless citizen, as which Dr. Ruff emerged in the course of this -trial. Can the Court base its verdict on the statements of a person like -Vieweg, who on top of everything shamelessly lied to the Tribunal and -committed the worst possible perjury. - -The other witness presented by the prosecution for the Dachau -experiments is Walter Neff.[20] He is at present in the Dachau camp for -war criminals and will soon have to stand trial himself before the -American Tribunal, for experiments in which he took an active part. This -witness Neff, who not only continuously participated in the successful -experiments of Dr. Romberg, but also in the inhuman freezing -experiments, in the deadly “severe experiments” of Rascher, and who -cooperated in many other cruelties, is, I think the last who should -appear as a witness against a man like Dr. Ruff, or condemn him. - -Let us recall what this witness said about himself at the close of his -testimony. According to his own admission, he produced three prisoners -(a certain Robert Wagner, a prisoner named Hutterer, and a man named -Sammendinger) for deadly experiments, on his own initiative without -being ordered to do so. According to his own testimony, he delivered -these three people over to a violent death; he murdered them. It is -characteristic of his ethics that he even boasted of this act here in -the courtroom! (_German Tr. pp. 737-739._) That does not trouble his -conscience, as he himself declared under oath (_German Tr. p. 737_); he -is just the type of those inmates who, to quote his own words “were -often worse than the SS in their cruelty and brutality”. (_German Tr. p. -737._) That is the second witness who was presented against Dr. Ruff by -the prosecution. The one, an unscrupulous swindler, an incorrigible -habitual criminal, an old jailbird; and the other a murderer many times -over whose hands are stained with much blood—a murderer who boasts that -he has no conscience. Is the Court to lend credence to such people? -These witnesses quite obviously believed they would be able to elude the -hangman’s noose by saddling other defendants with untrue, fabricated -statements. - -All those facts are a warning that Neff’s testimony, too, must be -regarded with considerable caution. At any rate, his testimony has a -certain importance for Dr. Ruff inasmuch as Neff (_German Tr. p. 652_) -confirms that Dr. Ruff was in Dachau only on one single occasion during -the high-altitude experiments. Thus the truth of Dr. Ruff’s own -testimony has been established. Furthermore, the witness Neff, states in -his testimony of 17 December 1946 that “10 prisoners, designated as -permanent experimental subjects, were taken to the station and told that -nothing would happen to them; they were especially assured of this”. -(_German Tr. p. 711._) The witness Neff then told of the killing of the -16 Russians who were sentenced to death and who were murdered by Dr. -Rascher. However, according to Dr. Neff, this act was carried out by Dr. -Rascher together with the two members of the SS, while Dr. Romberg was -not even present on that day. (_German Tr. pp. 654, 656._) Special -importance must be attached to the witness Neff’s further assertion -regarding a Jewish tailor who worked in the sick bay. Neff called Dr. -Romberg’s attention to the fact that this man was not sentenced to -death, and Romberg thereupon immediately went to Rascher with Neff in -order “to set matters straight”. Upon intervention by Dr. Romberg, -Rascher then actually sent the tailor back; when the accompanying SS man -again threatened the Jew, Rascher again intervened and “immediately had -the man (the tailor) brought to safety in the bunker”. (_German Tr. p. -655._) Again, in the case of a second inmate, a Czech, who wrongly and -without his consent had been brought in for the experiments, Dr. -Romberg, according to Neff’s report, intervened on behalf of the -prisoner, with the result that Dr. Rascher entered a complaint against -the criminal SS man with the camp commander, Piorkowski. Thereupon, the -SS man was immediately transferred to Lublin. In that way the Czech was -saved from certain death by Dr. Romberg. - -This testimony of the witness Neff plays an important part in answering -the question whether or not the experimental subjects used were -volunteers, and also, what Dr. Romberg, and therefore Dr. Ruff, knew -about them and what Dr. Romberg’s attitude was toward this question. In -this connection, Neff said: “Romberg, Ruff’s deputy, therefore, did not -want any dangerous experiments. He tolerated no murder and considered -only experiments with volunteers.” - -However, the further assertions of the witness Neff suffer from the same -shortcomings as those of the witness Vieweg; for Neff also did not know -that only part of the high-altitude experiments in Dachau were carried -out with the approval of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg; nor did Neff have any -knowledge of the agreements made by the participating physicians, and he -therefore treated all high-altitude experiments equally, without -distinguishing whether or not Dr. Ruff had agreed to them that there -“were 180 to 200 inmates who participated in high-altitude experiments” -(_German Tr. p. 656_) and that “during the altitude flight experiments, -70 to 80 people lost their lives.” These figures may be correct, but -they refer to the whole of the Dachau low-pressure chamber experiments; -that is, they also include the experiments which Dr. Rascher made on his -own authority, without the prior knowledge of Dr. Ruff, and in which -alone all the fatalities occurred; while in the legitimate -experiments—that is, those approved by Dr. Ruff—no fatality occurred -at all. Of course, Neff could not know all this. As he said himself it -was impossible for him to distinguish “from whom the order came for the -individual experiment, and in whose interest the experiment was made.” -(_German Tr. p. 715._) - -The same shortcoming is demonstrated by Neff’s testimony with regard to -the nationality of the experimental subjects (_German Tr. pp. 656, 657_) -and the manner of their “selection”. However, Neff’s testimony does show -that the selection of the experimental subjects was carried out in two -different ways: For the “_dangerous experiments_” Rascher ordered the -subjects through the local headquarters, and they were produced by the -SS; they were therefore people condemned to death (_German Tr. p. 663_), -for the “_serial experiments_”. On the other hand, and “for most of the -other experiments which took place, the people were brought to the -experimental station from the blocks, that is, from the camp” (_German -Tr. p. 657_) by the block leaders. (_German Tr. p. 663._) These “serial -experiments” were obviously the experiments approved by Ruff, and Neff -expressly establishes that “_volunteers reported for these -experiments_”! (_German Tr. pp. 657, 712._) He even gives the reasons -why the prisoners volunteered: As Rascher, and Himmler too, had promised -various inmates that, “if they, participated in the experiments, they -would be given a better labor assignment”, and as Himmler promised that -they might even be released, volunteers reported to Rascher on their own -initiative as he went through the camp, without any special efforts -being necessary to find volunteers (_German Tr. p. 657_). - -There can be no doubt that these volunteers, estimated by Neff to number -about 10, are identical with the 10 “official experimental subjects” or -“exhibition patients” mentioned already by the witness Vieweg, and it is -noteworthy that Dr. Ruff, too, in his testimony always spoke of 10 or -12, or at the most 15 persons from the very beginning (of course he did -not count them himself), who were regularly called in for the -high-altitude experiments, and whom he saw himself when he was once -present to observe and check the experiments in Dachau. This number Dr. -Ruff had mentioned at a time when Neff’s and Vieweg’s testimony was not -yet available. He therefore could not have anticipated that these -witnesses would confirm his figures as correct. - -To be sure, the witness Neff testified in another place (_German Tr. p. -666_) that the first 10 experimental subjects were not volunteers. But -this statement is obviously in direct contradiction to his other -testimony which, in the last analysis implied—and could not be -interpreted otherwise—that the so-called “10 official experimental -subjects” were those prisoners who had voluntarily offered themselves, -who were given all possible privileges in return, who were promised -rewards for their service by Rascher as well as by Himmler, and who were -repeatedly reassured that nothing would happen to them during the -experiments. This whole presentation would be incomprehensible if one -were to assume that these 10 persons were involuntary subjects as well, -that they were simply ordered to take part in the experiments, forced to -participate, for them all this would not have been necessary at all, -since at that time nobody in a concentration camp would have thought of -troubling himself about these people, if they had been forced against -their will to take part in the experiments. - -In a concentration camp, according to the opinion of Himmler and his -men, 1,000 people were of no consequence. Therefore, if efforts were -made to obtain these inmates for the experiments, and to get them -willingly, if even a Himmler found kind words to say to them and -promised them rewards, then as we know today, this can only be explained -by the assumption that even in concentration camps, for some reason, it -was desirable to obtain voluntary subjects for the experiments and to -induce them to go through the experiments voluntarily. This assumption -is not refuted by the contrary assertion of Neff (_German Tr. p. 666_). -For 1½ days, during his examination on 17 and 18 December 1947, Neff did -not know that these first 10 experimental subjects had not been -volunteers. For 1½ days he did not dare to make such an assertion here -in the witness box, and only during the cross-examination did he finally -go so far as to make this assertion, thereby completely overthrowing his -previous statements. - -This allegation of the multiple murderer Neff now stands, however, -completely isolated. There can be no doubt that, if these statements by -Neff were true, it would have been easy for the office of the public -prosecutor to produce numerous other witnesses who, likewise, had been -inmates of the concentration camp at Dachau, who had perhaps experienced -these experiments themselves, or who had spoken to subjects of these -experiments or had even observed the experiments. However, not a single -outsider, not a single incontestable witness has been produced, although -half a year has elapsed since the days when, here in the courtroom, one -could not fail to realize to what an unreliable and untrustworthy class -persons of the caliber of Vieweg and Neff belong. This fact very -strongly indicates that obviously no other witnesses are available, or -could be made available, who could confirm that the experimental -subjects who were used in the Ruff-Romberg altitude tests were not -volunteers. Let the fact be mentioned here, for the sake of comparison, -that in the case of the Gebhardt sulfanilamide operations for example, -half a dozen incriminating witnesses were brought from Poland and Russia -and were interrogated here as witnesses. Why was not a single -trustworthy witness produced from among the Dachau experimental subjects -and placed in the witness box? Because no one could be found, who could -confirm the untrue allegations of a Vieweg and a Neff. On the other -hand, during the trial, a whole series of persons who deserve a great -deal more belief than Vieweg and Neff affirmed with certainty that all -the experimental subjects in the Ruff-Romberg experiments were -volunteers, and that from the very beginning the indispensable condition -which was demanded and assured was that the subjects would be voluntary. - -The witness Dr. Lutz for example, who was introduced by the office of -the public prosecutor and therefore recognized by it as a credible -witness, confirmed here on oath, “it was a tacit assumption that the -criminals would volunteer”; and he added that he could almost say that, -in a way, a favor was being conferred upon the criminals, because “they -were given a chance of pardon by participating in the experiments,” and -it is significant that this witness deposed further: “subsequently, we -were very much surprised when, probably during the later stages of the -experiments, as far as I recall now, no further mention was made of it,” -namely, of the fact that only volunteers were to be used for the -altitude experiments (_German Tr. p. 320_). - -These depositions by the witness Dr. Lutz conform in every respect with -the general impression received from all the pertinent descriptions. At -first, only the altitude experiments approved by Dr. Ruff regarding the -problem of “rescue from high altitudes” were carried out. These -experiments were not dangerous as proved by their successful outcome; -the inmates volunteered for them. Gradually, however, Rascher misused -more and more the presence of the chamber in order to conduct his -arbitrary experiments on Himmler’s orders for entirely different -problems, namely, to conduct his notorious “difficult experiments” which -had numerous fatal results. These were Rascher’s more cruel, painful -experiments; naturally, no more volunteers reported for these because -word was passed quickly through the camp that the experiments which -Rascher himself conducted were dangerous, while the mere presence and -cooperation of Dr. Romberg gave assurance to the inmates that his -experiments were conscientiously conducted and were not dangerous. - -Other witnesses also, not named by Dr. Ruff, have confirmed that the -experimental subjects for the Ruff-Romberg high-altitude experiments -were voluntary, namely, the witness Dr. Hielscher (_German Tr. pp. -6025-26, 6041, 6062_). Testimony on similar lines is given by the -codefendant Sievers (_German Tr. pp. 5471, 5881_); and Dr. Hippke -(_German Tr. p. 793_) “Prisoners who might volunteer”; (_German Tr. p. -795_) “these persons had to volunteer for the experiments.” Also the -witness Karl Wolff, (_Ruff 21, Ruff Ex. 20_) “volunteer concentration -camp inmates who were to be given compensatory privileges * * * the -inmates, about 10 in number, appeared quite relaxed and, in their turn, -willingly entered the low-pressure chamber which had been driven up * * -* the inmates reported to Himmler, in my presence, that in this manner -they could at least voluntarily * * * give a proof of their genuine good -will * * * I never learned through Himmler, nor, as far as I remember, -by any other means that later low-pressure chamber experiments * * * -took place on a nonvoluntary basis * * * I only knew about voluntarily -low-pressure chamber experiments and these were made, without doubt, on -a voluntary basis.” Finally, the witness Herbert Wilschewske (_Ruff 11, -Ruff Ex. 9_). - -While the previous witness Wolff was only present for 1 day during the -experiments, the witness Wilschewske, during the 2 years he spent in the -concentration camp, spoke repeatedly to inmates who “had volunteered for -the medical experiments”, and who, by reason of his repeated -conversations with the prisoners, could give the following as reason for -the willingness to volunteer for experiments “they could earn thereby -their own liberty and rehabilitation as well as privileges for their -family.” The witness Wilschewske is certainly an absolutely reliable -witness with regard to his statements. He is a Polish Communist, served -2 years in Dachau concentration camp for this, and was proved to be only -a political prisoner. - -If one considers all these statements by witnesses, which certify that -the experimental subjects in the Dachau high-altitude experiments of -Drs. Ruff and Romberg were volunteers, it cannot be doubted that the -concordant statements by Dr. Ruff, Dr. Romberg, and Dr. Weltz were -absolutely true. They are defendants, it is true; but from all sides -testimony is given of their irreproachable professional integrity. -Although they are now sitting in the dock, their precise and clear -statements deserve far more belief than the changing and contradictory -statements of a habitual criminal who has committed downright perjury in -this Court, or of a murderer who is actually more deserving of a place -in this dock than these defendants are. - -The correctness of this conception is confirmed again on the one hand by -the fact—already mentioned in another connection—that Dr. Romberg, as -has been proved repeatedly, actively intervened and prevented the use of -experimental subjects for experiments by Rascher when he could see that -nonvoluntary experimental subjects were to be used, and on the other -hand, it was known that in the high-altitude experiments which Dr. Ruff -had carried out with Dr. Romberg only voluntary experimental subjects -could be used, and only with voluntary experimental subjects could the -experiments succeed. The whole idea of this type of high-altitude -experiment (the Ruff-Romberg method) was based on the theory that the -experimental subject, immediately on recovering from the state of -unconsciousness—the “high-altitude malady”—reaches up with his arm and -pulls down the handle of the parachute, which in practice reduces the -speed of the fall, insuring the flier of a smooth landing on the ground. -All this necessitated active cooperation on the part of the experimental -subject; one was absolutely dependent on his cooperation, otherwise each -of these experiments would have been useless right from the start. -Naturally, Dr. Ruff knew this, as did Dr. Romberg, and therefore for -them the first and most important condition for each experiment of this -type was that the experimental subject should be voluntary (_see Ruff’s -statement in German Tr. pp. 6638-40_). There are therefore also -important inherent reasons why the statements by Ruff and Romberg are -correct. - -Actually the high-altitude experiments carried out in Dachau were -successful. They were of considerable help in clarifying the problem of -“rescue from great heights”, and this was only possible when the -experimental subjects themselves cooperated when they took part in the -experiments voluntarily and took an interest in them. This was, by the -way, also the reason why this type of high-altitude experiment could not -be made with animals as experimental subjects, a fact which, for -example, Ruff and Romberg pointed out in their summary report of 28 July -1942. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) - -I come, therefore, to the following conclusion: There can be no doubt -that the experimental subjects for the Dachau high-altitude experiments -were volunteers, at least as far as the experiments authorized by Ruff -are concerned. Whether volunteers reported for the special experiments -continued by Dr. Rascher or whether the prisoners were forced into the -experiments by Dr. Rascher does not need to be examined, because Ruff -and Romberg did not participate in those experiments in any way. But -even if any doubt as to their being volunteers were possible, it cannot -be denied that Ruff and Romberg were firmly convinced that all their -experimental subjects actually were volunteers. This was stipulated from -the very beginning, and in all the discussions of Dr. Ruff with Hippke, -Weltz, and the representative of the SS, Ruff was consequently convinced -that only volunteers were actually concerned. - -Dr. Ruff’s conviction was strengthened through personal conversation -with various prisoners on that day on which he himself went to Dachau to -control the execution of the experiments and to ascertain that -everything was carried out in a completely orderly manner. And finally -in this connection it cannot be overlooked that Dr. Ruff, as he has -stated under oath and as is confirmed by numerous affidavits, had never -at any other time in his life worked with nonvoluntary experimental -subjects. Just because he considered it indispensable for the success of -the experiments that the experimental subjects were volunteers, that -they themselves cooperate, Dr. Ruff never thought that the Dachau -prisoners were not fully and completely in agreement with the -experiments. - - * * * * * - -It is obvious that the voluntary character of these experimental -subjects, whether an actual fact or whether Dr. Ruff deluded himself -into believing that this was the case, does not in itself relieve him of -all responsibility. On the contrary, Dr. Ruff himself is of the opinion -that, besides voluntariness, several other conditions would have to be -fulfilled before the experiments and the way in which they were -performed could be considered lawful: - -1. The experiment would have to be _necessary_, particularly necessary -in the interests of aviation and thus essential to the fatherland’s war -effort. This condition is obviously fulfilled. This is confirmed above -all by the statement of the witness Dr. Hippke who stated that it was -Dr. Ruff’s duty to work on the research tasks assigned to him by the -Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and to submit reports on them to -the Medical Inspectorate. - -The experiments carried out by Ruff were necessary, for “high-altitude -experiments in particular have been undertaken intensively in America, -too, because the question of pressure drop [Drucksturz] and the cabin -development is of particular importance.” (_Ruff 23, Ruff Ex. 22._) Dr. -Hippke developed this point of view not only during the trial but stated -it very clearly in his letter to Himmler, dated as early as 8 October -1942 (_NO-289, Pros. Ex. 72_), where he writes: “These-experiments -represent a very valuable and important supplement. The fact that such -an extreme deficiency of oxygen can be endured at all for some time is -very encouraging for further research.” Dr. Hippke’s opinion about the -necessity of the high-altitude experiments is therefore extremely -important because Hippke was the highest official expert in that field -in Germany at that time. - -But most of all, the absolute necessity of Ruff’s experiments is -acknowledged by all experts who testified in this trial in connection -with these problems. I recall, for example, the statements of the -witness Dr. Scheiber that “at a later judgment of Dr. Ruff’s scientific -work, his name will be remembered together with the names of all of -those well-known scientific research workers who, by personal, devoted, -and heroic effort, rendered immeasurable service to the advance of -science and therewith to the welfare of humanity.” Professor Dr. -Strughold expresses himself in a similar way in his affidavit. He was -chief of a German institute for aviation medicine for several years and -writes concerning Dr. Ruff that “he (Ruff) can be considered as a man -who surpasses by far many academically proficient and recognized -scientists as far as scientific experience and scientific success is -concerned.” Of particular importance, however, seems to be the opinion -of Dr. Grauer, who is at present in America as a research worker and -experimenter in matters of aviation medicine. - - * * * * * - -According to the opinion of the Air Force General, Adolf Galland, and -the statements of all the other experts, it is an established fact that -the Dachau experiments of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg were absolutely -necessary. - -This necessity does not cease to exist because the people concerned -realized that with this first series of experiments, carried out in -Dachau in the spring of 1942, the problem in question (rescue from high -altitudes) was not yet entirely solved. Ruff and Romberg pointed out in -their final report of 28 July 1942, that the “danger of freezing has to -be considered.” On the basis of this final report the medical inspector, -Dr. Hippke, later pointed out in his letter to Himmler of 10 October -1942 (_NO-289, Pros. Ex. 72_) that in the Dachau high-altitude -experiments of Ruff and Romberg of spring 1942, “a very important factor -was not yet taken into consideration, namely freezing.” He remarked, -however, at the same time that “the necessary supplementary work was -started meanwhile.” Hippke did not leave any doubt that this fact would -not impair the value and the importance of the Dachau high-altitude -experiments, which he stressed; for it is in the nature of such -experiments that both parts of the problem, high altitude and freezing -temperatures, cannot be dealt with simultaneously, but that at first -only one part must be considered, then the other. This was Ruff’s plan -from the very beginning, and the special experiments with regard to the -influence of freezing temperatures on descent from high altitudes were -carried out according to plan in the Berlin institute of Dr. Ruff in the -summer and fall of 1942. (Compare this with Dr. Grauer’s affidavit of 28 -January 1947.) - -Another prerequisite for the justification of the high-altitude -experiments undertaken by Ruff and Romberg lies in the requirement that -the experiments should not be extended any further than is necessary for -the solution of the problems presented. This requirement, too, was -fulfilled by Dr. Ruff. It is confirmed by his own testimony (_German Tr. -p. 6704_), as well as by the testimony of Dr. Romberg (_German Tr. pp. -6879-80_), that Dr. Romberg was sent by Dr. Ruff to Dachau with a -definite program which carefully outlined the kind as well as the extent -of the experiments to be carried out. Only the problem of “rescue from -high altitude” was to be investigated. Only experiments for this purpose -were ordered by Dr. Ruff. Dr. Romberg was not allowed to undertake -experiments for any other purposes, and the experiments were to be -carried on only until either the problem was solved or its solution -found impossible. Had Dr. Romberg not adhered to this program, which had -been strictly outlined, had he carried out further experiments behind -Dr. Ruff’s back, the latter could in no case have been responsible for -them. Since he was not told of such further experiments by Dr. Romberg, -he could not stop them. However, it must be stated expressly that Dr. -Romberg adhered to Dr. Ruff’s orders; he did not carry out more -extensive experiments than he had been permitted and had been ordered; -this was done alone and solely by Dr. Rascher. The latter, however, was -in no way subordinated to Dr. Ruff, nor to Dr. Romberg; moreover, he -would certainly not have taken any orders from either of them. _The -final report Ruff-Romberg-Rascher of 28 July 1942_ (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. -66_) furnishes clear proof of the fact that Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg -were at all times conscious of their duty to restrict experiments to the -extent which seemed absolutely necessary in order to explore a problem -which was all-important at the time and to carry out no experiments -which could not be considered especially important and of great -consequence. - -Even the introduction to this report of 28 July 1942 is significant for -the delineation of the tasks set for these experiments. It reads: -“Considering the urgency of finding a practical solution to this -important problem [the rescue of airplane crews from high altitude], -particularly in view of the prevailing experimental conditions, it was -necessary to forego for the time being a detailed clarification of the -purely scientific problems involved.” Here the basic tendency of all the -experiments finds its clear expression. Only such practical requirements -of aviation which could not be postponed during time of war should be -solved, while investigations of purely scientific nature, without great -practical significance, were to be excluded. This restriction of -solutions sought demonstrates that the scientists in question (Ruff and -Romberg) were not subject to the unbridled desire for experimentation -which may be found in people of Rascher’s type. - - * * * * * - -Were the Ruff-Romberg high-altitude experiments in Dachau dangerous to -life? If it is demanded that experiments on humans are carried out as -humanely as possible, pain avoided wherever possible, and damage to -health eliminated, it is obvious that deaths must be prevented in every -way possible. The conscientious research worker will always start from -the standpoint that experiments can only then be carried out when, -according to human estimation and the experience of science, death can -in no way be expected. According to German Law (Article 216 of the -German Penal Code) the intentional killing of a person would not be -legalized through his agreement, not even at his expressed desire. - -To this question the presentation of evidence has shown the following: - -1. In the Summary Report Ruff-Romberg-Rascher of 28 July 1942, it is -“expressly stated that in the whole series of experiments no death and -likewise no permanent oxygen deficiency damage occurred.” (_NO-402, -Pros. Ex. 66._) In direct contradiction to this appears to be, at least -at first glance, the intermediary report which Dr. Rascher alone made on -his experiments on 5 April 1942 to the Reich Leader SS Himmler -(_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49_) and also the following secret report, which -likewise Dr. Rascher alone sent to Himmler on 11 May 1942. (_NO-220, -Pros. Ex. 61._) These two special reports by Dr. Rascher prove that in -the experiments described by Rascher alone several deaths occurred. - -The explanation of the apparent contradiction is shown clearly by the -presentation of evidence: In the experiments authorized by Dr. Ruff and -carried out with his approval not a single death occurred. Only the -arbitrary experiments which Rascher carried out without the approval of -Dr. Ruff and against his will, and which were ordered by Himmler, were -deadly. - -This can be seen from Rascher’s intermediary report of 5 April 1942. -(_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._) It falls into two parts. - -In the first part Dr. Rascher describes the experiments carried out with -Dr. Ruff’s approval. He states expressly, “the experiments conducted by -myself and Dr. Romberg,” and he confirms that even “in a total of 15 -extreme experiments, none of the experimental subjects died. Severe -high-altitude sickness with unconsciousness occurred; however, the -subject was always fully capable of action when approximately 7 km. was -attained in the descent.” - -In the second part, Rascher then describes his arbitrary experiments of -which Ruff knew nothing, and was permitted to know nothing. This second -part of the report is much more extensive and detailed than the first. -That can be explained without difficulty because the experiments -mentioned in this second part were carried out by Rascher himself; here -he could describe the “merit” of the results he apparently gained all by -himself. From this second part he obviously also hoped for complete new -results for science, which he emphasized in the accompanying letter to -Himmler of 5 April 1942, and he was obviously very proud that following -his suggestions (as he emphasized) such “interesting standard -experiments” were carried out. All this referred exclusively to the -arbitrary experiments mentioned in the second part of the report, which -Rascher carried out alone without the assistance of Dr. Romberg and -without the authorization and previous knowledge of Dr. Ruff. -(_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._) - -Rascher himself made this distinction in his report (_1971-A-PS, Pros. -Ex. 49_): He contrasts in the second part of his report the “extremely -dangerous experiments” with the “experiments carried out by myself -(Rascher) and Romberg,” while he specially asked for an “SS doctor from -the camp as witness” for the arbitrary experiments of the second part of -his report, as “I carried out these experiments by myself.” But surely -Dr. Rascher had his reasons for specially requesting “a camp doctor as a -witness” for these experiments (which are described in the second part -of his report), but intentionally kept Dr. Romberg away. Dr. Rascher -indicates these reasons in his accompanying letter of 5 April 1942, -talking about difficulties which the Luftwaffe created for him up to -that time, whose removal he hopes for by the intervention of SS Fuehrer -Sievers. These difficulties which hindered the research work of Rascher -were discussed in various other documents which concerned the use of the -low-pressure chamber and its return to Dachau, which the SS tried to -arrange but never succeeded. - -If Dr. Rascher in his intermediary report (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49_) -emphasized that “only continuous experiments are fatal at heights above -10.5 km.”, this plainly confirms, in Dr. Rascher’s own words, what Ruff -and Romberg stated from the very beginning, that two kinds of -high-altitude experiments were carried out in Dachau with the -low-pressure chamber. The one kind, which Dr. Romberg took part in and -Dr. Ruff knew about, was carried out completely humanely and without any -pain, and nothing happened; and the other kind, which Rascher carried -out alone by order of Himmler, without Romberg and without the previous -knowledge of Dr. Ruff, to which at one time an SS doctor was even asked -to attend as a witness and which caused several fatalities. - -This result is confirmed by the second report, which Rascher again alone -(without the participation of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg) submitted to -Himmler, dated 11 May 1942, as a secret report (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61_). -He describes here the experiments which he carried out jointly with Dr. -Romberg and again states: “On the average, the experimental subjects -were in complete accord of their actions at 12-13 km.; no disturbances -of any kind in the general condition occurred in any of these -experiments,” and even less, of course, a fatality. Only among the -experiments described under figures 6 and 7 of this secret report of -Rascher’s did fatalities occur, and that “during a continued -high-altitude experiment, for example after half an hour in an altitude -of 12 km.” But these experiments (according to figures 6 and 7) were the -arbitrary experiments in which Rascher had other aims in mind, which had -nothing to do with Ruff’s problem of “saving from high altitudes,” and -which were carried out by Rascher alone. - -It is also interesting that Rascher still mentions the partial -assistance of Dr. Romberg in his first report (of 5 April 1942) -(_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49_) but does not say anything more in the final -second report (of 11 May 1942), (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61_) where he -described the affair as though he alone had carried, out the -experiments. Compare page 81, line 21: “Experiments carried out by -myself”; or page 79, lines 15-16: “_My_ heart experiments * * * that a -very big sphere of work opened up for _me_,” etc. By that Rascher has -clearly expressed that he did not have any assistance from Dr. Romberg -in the experiments he thought particularly valuable, when he explains as -particularly valuable his heart experiments and his observations -concerning air embolism. Those were all experiments in which Ruff and -Romberg had not the least interest, in which they never participated, -and for which they would never have risked the health and the life of an -experimental subject. - -Even specialists like Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg could never understand -the scientific or other aim which Rascher had in mind in the case of -those arbitrary experiments with fatal endings. Even the layman can -easily recognize the basic difference between the two categories of -experiments. The legal experiments which had been authorized by Dr. Ruff -were always restricted to a very short period of a few moments; but the -fatal experiments of Dr. Rascher were, as he emphasized himself, -continuous experiments without oxygen, therefore experiments lasting -over 30 minutes. It is easily understandable that experiments of such a -length without the administration of oxygen may be fatal. To prove this -it would not have been necessary to sacrifice even one single human life -in these experiments. Serious research workers like Dr. Ruff and Dr. -Romberg had therefore never carried out and never authorized such -experiments. That was also well known to Rascher, and this explains the -fact as stated by Neff (_German Tr. pp. 668, 670, 671_) that Rascher -kept Dr. Romberg intentionally away from his arbitrary experiments; -furthermore that he even carried out his experiments at night to keep -them secret from Dr. Romberg, and that he also did not ask Romberg to -sign his intermediary report of 5 April 1942, nor his summarizing secret -report of 11 May 1942, which Romberg would surely have refused to do. - - * * * * * - -It would therefore be quite wrong to attribute to Dr. Ruff and Dr. -Romberg the intention of wanting to suppress something in their final -report of 28 July 1942. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) For it is a proven -fact that not only Himmler was informed by Rascher of the cases of death -which had occurred, but that Dr. Ruff had also reported the cases of -death for which Dr. Rascher was guilty, to his supreme superior, the -Inspector of the Medical Service [of the air force], Dr. Hippke. For -this same reason he had caused the low-pressure chamber to be removed -from Dachau and had asked the witness, Dr. Hippke, to consent to this. -These proven facts show that Dr. Ruff did not conceal anything and had -nothing to conceal. The fact that the cases of death were not mentioned -in the final report of 28 July 1942 has therefore nothing to do with any -concealment but is only due to the fact that those experiments which had -fatal results had nothing whatsoever to do with the experiments of Dr. -Ruff and Dr. Romberg and their problem. - -For the same reasons it is not surprising at all that Dr. Ruff did not -inform Dr. Weltz of the fatal accidents during the special experiments -of Rascher. Weltz was neither Ruff’s superior nor his subordinate, and -at the time when Dr. Ruff learned of the deaths which had occurred -during Rascher’s experiments, Dr. Rascher had already been transferred -from the Weltz Institute. - - * * * * * - -The defense, therefore, arrives at the following conclusion: - -Dr. Ruff only did what his superiors ordered him to do. If they have -failed, they should be taken to account. - -Dr. Ruff had no doubts concerning the orders of his superiors for his -assignment was urgently necessary in the interest of his country, -engaged in the most difficult war, and of its aviation. If Dr. Ruff at -the time had been able to read all the international literature about -medical experiments on human beings he would have learned that -experiments much more exacting and much more dangerous than those with -which he was familiar—which he knew and planned—were being conducted -everywhere, also on prisoners; and perhaps they are still being -conducted without the competent authorities or medical societies -declaring them impermissible and intervening against them. Over many -years, Dr. Ruff proved himself to be a particularly conscientious and -considerate man of research who devoted his entire activity primarily to -save endangered human lives. Neither can he be blamed for having -collaborated for a short time with Dr. Rascher. He (Rascher) had been -assigned to him as associate by his highest superiors; he had to rely -upon that. If they ordered him to work together with a man who, later -on, turned out to be a criminal, no liability can be charged to Dr. -Ruff. When Dr. Ruff saw through his colleague who was forced upon him -and realized his criminal activities, he immediately cut off all -relations to him on his own initiative, avoided any further -collaboration with him, and thus probably prevented much further -disaster. - -Field Marshal Milch was acquitted as far as the Dachau altitude tests -are concerned.[21] Medical Inspector Dr. Hippke was not indicted at all. -Under these circumstances justice demands that Dr. Ruff be acquitted. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ - - * * * * * - - _Low-Pressure Experiments_ - -Low-pressure experiments (high-altitude experiments) were carried out in -the Dachau concentration camp from 22 February to the end of May 1942. - -The first plans to carry out experiments “for rescue from high -altitudes” were discussed already in 1941. The experiments were an -affair of the Luftwaffe. (_1581-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 48._) - -The carrying out of experiments for “rescue from high altitudes” was -agreed upon, as far as the Dachau concentration camp was concerned, by -the Reich Minister for Aviation (represented by State Secretary and -Field Marshal Milch) and the Reich Leader SS Himmler. (_German Tr. p. -274. Also judgment of Military Tribunal II, Nuernberg in case of Field -Marshal Milch. See Vol. II._) The witness Neff gave the exact date of -the start of the experiments. The experiments were started on 22 -February 1942. The witness could remember this date so well because it -was his birthday. (_German Tr. p. 606._) After a few interruptions the -experiments ended in the second half of May. (_German Tr. p. 6779._) - -When answering the question whether the experiments could inflict -torture and death on the experimental subjects, one has to distinguish -between the experiments which according to the detailed instructions of -Dr. Ruff were carried out by Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg in the Dachau -concentration camp, and the experiments which Rascher carried out either -with the knowledge and permission of Himmler, or without his permission -on his own responsibility. - -With regard to the first experiments it has to be said that they caused -the experimental subjects some discomfort through high-altitude -sickness, but that on no account did they mean torture and death for the -experimental subjects. (Evidence of Dr. Ruff in direct examination.) - -On the other hand the experiments which Rascher conducted on his -responsibility have, according to Prosecution Document 1971-A-PS (_Pros. -Ex. 49_), apparently to be judged in a different manner. - -Sievers came in contact with the low-pressure experiments only; in the -second half of March 1942. By letter of 21 March 1942 Rudolf Brandt -replied to an inquiry of the Reich business manager of the Ahnenerbe of -9 March 1942 concerning Rascher, and informed him that low-pressure -experiments were carried out in the Dachau camp: “The Reich Leader SS -gave his permission on condition that Dr. Rascher would participate.” -(_1581-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 48._) - -The cause of Sievers’ letter of 9 March 1942 was the statement of Dr. -Rascher to the curator Wuest, according to which certain research work -which he carried out for the Luftwaffe in Dachau, and of which he could -give no details, was to be supported by the administration of the -“Ahnenerbe”. (_German Tr. p. 5671._) Following this, Sievers went to -Dachau in late March or on 1 April 1942. (_German Tr. p. 5672._) - -Thus this date was the earliest on which Sievers could possibly have -gained knowledge about the carrying out of high-altitude experiments in -Dachau. It is important that at this time the experiments had already -been under way for over a month. - -The cunning Rascher took the first visit of Sievers as an opportunity to -invite Sievers to have a look at the experiments directed by him, in -spite of the fact that Sievers had nothing at all to do with the -carrying out of the experiments. Sievers watched two experiments. He -took the opportunity to speak to the two persons who were subjected to -the experiments on that day. Both told Sievers that they had volunteered -for the experiment. A few minutes after the experiment both experimental -subjects did not show any after-effects and finished the experiment -without suffering any bodily or physical damage. (_German Tr. p. 5741._) - -The following proceeding shows the special care which was taken in the -carrying out of these experiments: It was agreed with the experimental -persons that in case of earache they were to point with the hand to the -ear. When one of the experimental subjects did this, Dr. Romberg -immediately altered the pressure conditions, and the behavior of the -experimental subject showed that he had no more discomfort. (_German Tr. -pp. 5743 and 6845._) - -Since the question of the voluntary status of the human experimental -subjects may be of significance in the case of all experiments, a -comprehensive presentation of the most important depositions on this -subject is given here. - -Himmler stated at the Easter conference in 1942, in answer to the -scruples of Sievers, that only volunteers were to be allowed to be drawn -upon for the experiments, and if the experiments were fraught with -danger to life then only major criminals under sentence of death and no -political prisoners would be taken. (_German Tr. p. 5677._) The witness -Neff testified that volunteers presented themselves for the experiments. -(_German Tr. p. 614._) - -Dr. Craemer of the Mountain Institute for Psychology of the Army -Mountain Medical School [Gebirgspsychologisches, Institut der -Heeres-Gebirgs-Sanitaets-Schule] has, in an affidavit, reported a -conversation with Dr. Rascher in the course of which the latter said: - - “Human experimental subjects. It is a question of major - criminals under valid sentence of death who come forward - voluntarily for the experiments in Dachau in order to have life - and liberty given to them if they survive an experiment.” - (_Handloser 37, Handloser Ex. 18._) - -The witness Meine declared: - - “* * * since, furthermore, I knew from the series of experiments - in Oranienburg that the prisoners had come forward voluntarily - in crowds * * * my suspicion was not aroused during these - years.” (_German Tr. p. 4864._) - -Dr. Mrugowsky deposed the following in his direct examination regarding -yellow-fever experiments: - - “Only volunteers were used, and Dr. Ding states in his - declaration (_NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283_) that he knew of a list, - and that for these kinds of cases always hundreds of volunteers - offered themselves because they would not need to work for 4 - weeks and were better fed.” (_German Tr. p. 5195._) - -Further, I refer to the affidavit of Dr. Morgen, which was submitted by -Dr. Mrugowsky’s defense counsel, Mrugowsky 32 (_Mrugowsky Exhibit 26_): - - “At the conference with Dr. Ding I learned that the human - experimental subjects came forward voluntarily for these - experiments. * * * In the case of the prisoner whose treatment I - chanced to watch with others, I had the definite impression that - he was a volunteer.” (_German Tr. p. 5228._) - -In connection with the high-altitude experiments in Dachau, I quote the -following from Dr. Ruff’s deposition: - - “Professor Dr. Weltz told me that these human experimental - subjects were professional criminals who were allowed to - volunteer for the experiments.” (_German Tr. p. 6532._) - - “Hippke told me also in this conversation that it was a question - of major criminals who could offer themselves voluntarily for - the experiments and who, following the experiments, were then to - receive in some form a mitigation of their punishment, either - reduction or remission.” (_German Tr. p. 6534._) - -The chief of Himmler’s personal staff, SS General Karl Wolff, gave an -affidavit in London on 21 November 1946, which is of special importance -because Wolff himself watched experiments in Dachau together with -Himmler, and also reported to Hitler concerning the experiments: - - “They (namely, the human experimental subjects) protested to - Himmler in my presence that—after their request to be sent to - the front had been turned down—they wanted to render a modest - voluntary service to Germany and thereby give proof of the good - will they really possessed. * * * That later low-pressure - experiments are said to have taken place on prisoners on a - nonvoluntary basis—of that I received no knowledge either from - Himmler nor in any other way.” (_German Tr. pp. 6757-58._) - -Dr. Romberg declared in direct examination: - - “In the course of time, not exactly on the first day, but as - time went on, I spoke of course with all of them more often and - in greater detail; then they told me gradually what previous - sentences they had had, what prisons and penitentiaries they had - already been at before coming to the camp. They told me also the - reasons why they had come forward and had placed themselves - voluntarily at the disposal of the experiments.” - -To the question: “Do you mean by that, that all the human experimental -subjects who were used for the altitude experiments were voluntarily -human experimental subjects?” Dr. Romberg answered with a clear, “Yes.” -(_German Tr. pp. 6787-88._) - -The following is quoted from Dr. Weltz’ deposition: - - “When I first heard anything from Kottenhoff concerning - Rascher’s proposals, Kottenhoff spoke already of volunteers. - Later, after this conversation with Hippke I spoke again with - Rascher. Rascher also spoke of volunteers. We then had Rascher - at our joint consultation with Ruff and Romberg in my institute. - There, too, he spoke of volunteers. In the observations that he - made at the Nuernberg conference in connection with - Holzloehner’s lecture, he spoke of volunteers. He spoke further - of volunteers, on the return journey from the Nuernberg - conference, with Dr. Craemer from St. Johann. * * * Thus I never - heard Rascher speak otherwise than of volunteers, and, as I said - already, that was the reason why we did not speak for a long - time at all concerning compulsory experiments with Hippke.” - (_German Tr. p. 7064._) - -The affidavit of the Polish Communist Wilschewske, an inmate of Dachau -concentration camp, which was read on 28 April 1947, deposes as to the -voluntary status of the human experimental subjects: - - “Prisoners who came forward for these experiments did so, as far - as I know, voluntarily, because they could thereby gain their - own freedom and rehabilitation, and also favorable treatment for - their relatives.” (_German Tr. p. 6555._) - -Dr. Becker-Freyseng deposed the following in his direct examination: - - “Rascher spoke unequivocally of prisoners or criminal characters - who were available because of special sanctions * * * by Hitler - and Himmler, and through volunteering.” (_German Tr. pp. - 7850-51._) - -The witness Dorn, a former prisoner in Buchenwald, deposed in answer to -the following question: Were these people now forced into these -experiments or was there a possibility of volunteering? - - “I should like to give you an answer to that. Imagine the - position of a prisoner who perhaps for years had not had enough - to eat to satisfy him, and who perhaps learns from a camp - conversation that if he were to offer himself for this or that - experiment he would receive a double or triple amount of food. - You can imagine that hundreds or more presented themselves - merely from the purely human urge to eat their fill once again.” - (_German Tr. p. 8620._) - -Dr. Beiglboeck likewise makes assertions in his direct examination -concerning the voluntary status of the human experimental subjects, and -declares in conclusion: - - “I had at that time absolutely no reason to doubt that this - information was correct. Superiors, officers of the SS, and the - human experimental subjects themselves admitted this to me. And - I do not know what more I could have done in order to assure - myself still further.” (_German Tr. p. 8701._) - -The voluntary status of the prisoners is likewise confirmed in his -affidavit by the witness Dr. Lesse, who worked as a doctor with Dr. -Beiglboeck in Dachau. (_Beiglboeck 14, Beiglboeck Ex. 20._) - -The witness Mettbach has also confirmed the voluntary status of the -human experimental subjects in connection with the sea-water -experiments. - -Finally reference is made to the deposition of the witness Nales, who -was examined by the prosecution on 30 June 1947 in the second half of -the forenoon session, and who testified to the voluntary status of the -human experimental subjects used in the Lost gas experiments. - -The evidence produced has not given the slightest grounds for believing -that Sievers had any knowledge at all that nonvoluntary human -experimental subjects were compelled to undergo experiments, or that the -experiments would be painful or fraught with danger to life. - -As a precaution let us also examine the question as to what further -activity Sievers developed in connection with the low-pressure -experiments. From the document book presented by the prosecution it -appears that Sievers passed on letters which came to his office. Sievers -is mentioned in some documents. The following separate letters are at -hand: - -In connection with the altitude experiments, the prosecution’s document -book contains the following documents in which the Reich Business -Manager of the Ahnenerbe is mentioned in one way or another. (_NO-263, -Pros. Ex. 47._) Letter from Frau Rascher to the Reich Leadership SS -dated 24 February 1942: - - “Rascher requests SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Schnitzler to acquaint - the Reich Leader with the events and to say at the same time - that Rascher, as a member of the Ahnenerbe, definitely wishes to - participate scientifically in the experiments.” - -From this it is seen how very keen even Frau Rascher was that her -husband should participate in the experiments in Dachau. This was at a -time when Sievers had as yet no knowledge at all of the altitude -experiments. - -Letter from the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt, -dated 26 August 1942 (_NO-221, Pros. Ex. 68_). This letter contains a -copy of a letter from Rascher which had as its subject a report by -Rascher and Romberg to Field Marshal Milch. The second part of the -letter contains the report and the assent to the publication of the -scientific results. Here the date of the letter must be pointed out, 26 -August 1942, which was many weeks after the altitude experiments had -come to an end, in May 1942. - -Dr. Brandt’s reply to Sievers, dated 29 August 1942 (_NO-222, Pros. Ex. -69_): - - “The letter of the Reich Leader SS, with which he has forwarded - the report to Field Marshal Milch, was only signed and sent off - a few days ago. Copy of the letter of the Reich Leader SS dated - 25 August 1942 is enclosed for your information.” - -Here it is to be observed that this letter likewise was written long -after the conclusion of the altitude experiments and, like the preceding -one, contains nothing at all concerning the experiments. It cannot be -inferred from the letter dated 29 August 1942 that a copy of the report -sent to Field Marshal Milch was also sent to the Ahnenerbe. - -Brandt sends Sievers a copy of his letter to Dr. Rascher dated 6 -September 1942 (_NO-223, Pros. Ex. 71_). It contains the information -that Field Marshal Milch will ask Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg to meet -shortly and report. - -Letter from Rascher to Himmler, dated 9 October 1942 (_1610-PS, Pros. -Ex. 73_). Sievers is mentioned in connection with the unsuccessful -report to Milch. It is worth noting that Rascher asks that the -low-pressure chamber may still be left at his disposal for further -experiments. - -Letter from the Reich Business Manager of the “Ahnenerbe” to the -personal staff, for the attention of Dr. Brandt, dated 21 October 1942 -(_NO-226, Pros. Ex. 75_ (_Pros. Ex. 110 in Milch case_); _1617-PS, Pros. -Ex. 111 in Milch case_). This letter contains the information that the -freezing experiments are finished and that the altitude experiments -desired by the Reich Leader SS can now be continued. For this purpose -the low-pressure chamber will be needed again, and the Reich Leader SS -is to write personally to Field Marshal Milch. The rough draft of a -letter of the Reich Leader SS to Field Marshal Milch was enclosed with -this letter. This rough draft is submitted by the prosecution as NO-226, -Prosecution Exhibit 75. This draft was submitted by Sievers because of -an assignment given to him by Himmler. The rough draft was drawn up in -accordance with Rascher’s suggestions. (_German Tr. p. 5682._) - -This letter, dated 13 December 1942, contains several research -commissions given personally by Himmler to Rascher (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. -79_). Number 5 reads: - - “The procuring of the apparatus necessary for all experiments is - to be discussed separately with the offices of the Reich - Physician SS of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office, - and with the Ahnenerbe Registered Association.” - -A copy went to the Ahnenerbe. - -This is a letter from the Vorstand [Board of Directors] of the -Siemens-Schuckert-Werke, Berlin, and concerns the ordering of an -electrocardiograph (_NO-3675, Pros. Ex. 548_). This apparatus was never -delivered because the “SS priority grade” was not certified. Let it be -remarked here, for the sake of understanding, that the designation “SS -priority grade” was in general use and had nothing to do with the “SS”, -the so-called “Schutzstaffeln” of the NSDAP. - -Letter from Sievers to the Rector of the University of Munich concerning -the loan of different pieces of apparatus (_NO-3674, Pros. Ex. 549._) -Dr. Wuest was, as repeatedly pointed out, office chief of the Ahnenerbe. -As such he had exact information concerning the research commissions of -the Institute for Military Scientific Research. A simple way to obtain -the apparatus would have been an agreement made over the telephone. If -Sievers chose to do it by letter it was only because of the delaying -tactics practiced by him. This is seen clearly from the postscript -intended for Rascher, telling him not to participate. It is also worthy -of note that the apparatus was to be used in Munich and not in Dachau. - -Sievers had no right to issue orders or instructions in connection with -the low-pressure experiments, as is seen from part III of the closing -brief. Sievers had not the slightest influence on the carrying out of -the experiments. - -Sievers could have had no knowledge that the experiments might be -inhuman, because he, or the Ahnenerbe, was only brought in when the -experiments had already been in progress for over a month. - -The question still to be examined is whether and when Sievers received -knowledge of Rascher’s reports concerning his experiments. To this the -following details are pointed out: On 5 April 1942 Rascher sent an -interim report on his low-pressure experiments direct to Himmler. He -asked that the report should be treated as secret. (_1971-A-PS, Pros. -Ex. 49._) - -The acknowledgment of the receipt did not go through the Ahnenerbe but -went directly from Rudolf Brandt to Rascher. (_1971-C-PS, Pros. Ex. -50._) It is nowhere mentioned that a copy went to the Ahnenerbe. From -the distribution of the order issued by Himmler thereon (_1971-B-PS, -Pros. Ex. 51_), it is clearly seen that the Ahnenerbe received no copy -of the order. - -On 11 May 1942 Rascher sent a further secret report direct to Himmler, -so that Sievers here too had no possibility of acquiring any knowledge -of this report. (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._) - -On 22 September 1942 the German Experimental Station for Aviation sent -copies of Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of the report “Experiments on Rescue from -High Altitudes” as “top secret” matter to the Reich Leader SS “to be -filed there”. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) Even if the first page of the -report bears the note, “The investigations were conducted in conjunction -with the Research and Instruction Association the Ahnenerbe”, no kind of -proof is thereby furnished that a copy of the report reached the -Ahnenerbe. It is true that Sievers does not exclude the possibility that -such a report came to the Ahnenerbe, but he denies that he read such a -report, because it did not concern him, and it also did not interest him -as it dealt with medical matters. If he did read any of it, it was at -the most the short summary to be found at the end. (_German Tr. p. -5681._) - -It must also be pointed out that there is nothing in this report which -could lead to the conclusion that the experiments had fatal results. The -prosecution’s expert Professor Ivy also confirmed this in answer to the -Court’s question: “Is there anything mentioned in the -Ruff-Romberg-Rascher report about experiments concerning which it can be -asserted with absolute certainty that fatalities, permanent injury, or -great pain have resulted in the case of human experimental subjects?” -The expert’s answer was “No.” (_German Tr. p. 9217._) In addition this -report was sent to Himmler on 22 September 1942, thus, long after the -close of the experiments. Sievers cannot then have gained any insight -into Rascher’s criminal activity from Rascher’s reports. - -Sievers had not the power or the opportunity of preventing Rascher’s -criminal experiments or of bringing them to a standstill. It is true -that at the Easter conference in 1942 he tried to move Himmler to -discontinue all experiments in the concentration camps, or at least to -bring about the suppression of the research of Rascher and Professor Dr. -Hirt, which were not in harmony with the character of the Ahnenerbe. -Both his suggestions were refuted by Himmler’s declaration that “all -that” was no concern of Sievers and that he (Himmler) bore the sole -responsibility. (_German Tr. p. 5714._) - -In spite of Himmler’s declaration, Sievers endeavored to halt further -low-pressure experiments, when the low-pressure chamber had been removed -from Dachau at the beginning of June 1942. - -Already on 27 November 1942, the chief of the personal staff of the -Reich Leader SS, SS General Wolff, had applied to Field Marshal Milch in -order to make possible Rascher’s further experiments in Dachau. In the -closing sentence of this letter the loan of the low-pressure chamber is -once again requested. (_NO-269, Pros. Ex. 78_ (_Pros. Ex. 118 in the -Milch Case_).) - -That General Wolff by Himmler’s orders laid great stress on making -further experiments possible is seen from the fact that a copy of the -letter went also to SS Oberfuehrer Dr. Wuest, who was office chief of -the Ahnenerbe. Thereby the special importance of the affair was to be -shown also to the Ahnenerbe, on which the obligation rested to procure -the requisite apparatus in accordance with figure three of Himmler’s -order of 7 July 1942 (_NO-422, Pros. Ex. 33_) and repeated later under -figure five of Himmler’s order of 13 December 1942 (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. -79_). - -When the Luftwaffe did not make the low-pressure chamber available -again, Sievers was commissioned to buy a special portable low-pressure -chamber for the SS. (_German Tr. p. 5800._) And then Sievers did -something unheard of and rang up Dr. Romberg of the German Experimental -Station for Aviation. Romberg was very much surprised at this telephone -call. (_German Tr. pp. 6839-40._) - -Through his communication that he had been commissioned by Himmler to -procure a low-pressure chamber for Rascher, who at that time was still a -member of the Luftwaffe, he aroused the attention of the Luftwaffe. For -Dr. Romberg communicated this news to his superior Dr. Ruff, who, on his -side, informed Dr. Becker-Freyseng of the Medical Inspectorate of the -Luftwaffe. (_German Tr. pp. 6607-08, 7878_; _Becker-Freyseng 24, -Becker-Freyseng Ex. 11_.) This was what Sievers counted upon. The -consent of the Luftwaffe would have been necessary for the purpose of -sanctioning the requisite priority grade for a low-pressure chamber. The -Luftwaffe denied this necessity and thus the low-pressure chamber under -consideration for Rascher was not procured. - -When Himmler in the year 1943—probably at Rascher’s urging—ordered -Sievers again to procure a low-pressure chamber, Sievers was able once -more to prevent one from being procured. This time he pointed out that -the research management of the Luftwaffe did not consider it necessary -to continue with altitude experiments. Sievers advanced this statement -at random, profiting by the fact that Rascher, though probably known to -the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, was not known to the research -management of the Luftwaffe. (_German Tr. p. 5801._) - - _Summary_ - -Criminal action on the part of Sievers cannot be proved in connection -with the low-pressure experiments. The carrying out of the experiments -was neither ordered nor arranged for by him. He did not come into -contact with the experiments until they had been in progress for over a -month. What Sievers saw, heard, and read about the experiments could not -in any way give him the knowledge that inadmissible experiments were -being made. Sievers had no knowledge of Rascher’s criminal experiments -while the experiments were in progress, because Rascher kept these -experiments completely secret. Sievers’ activity was of a completely -subordinate nature. Apart from that, however, Sievers helped to prevent -Rascher (whom Sievers could not bear, for he was a pompous fellow and a -protégé of Himmler) from being put again in a position to carry on -further low-pressure experiments. - -There is no criminal guilt then on the part of Sievers, as far as -Sievers’ contact with the low-pressure experiments is concerned. - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - Pros. -Doc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page -1602-PS 44 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 15 May 1941, 141 - concerning high-altitude experiments on - human beings. -1582-PS 45 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Rascher, undated, 143 - nforming him that prisoners would be made - available for high-altitude research. -1581-A-PS 48 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Sievers, 21 March 144 - 1942, concerning Rascher’s participation in - high-altitude experiments. -1971-A-PS 49 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 5 April 1942, 144 - and report, undated, on high-altitude - experiments. -1971-C-PS 50 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Rascher, 13 April 147 - 1942, regarding his success with - high-altitude experiments. -1971-B-PS 51 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 13 April 1942, 148 - requesting a repetition of high-altitude - experiments on prisoners condemned to death. -1971-D-PS 52 Teletype from Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 20 149 - October 1942, requesting clarification on - the pardon granted by Himmler. -1971-E-PS 53 Teletype from Rudolf Brandt to Schnitzler, 21 149 - October 1942, concerning the pardon granted - by Himmler. -NO-218 56 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 16 April 1942, 150 - reporting on high-altitude experiments with - fatal results and on experiments conducted - together with Romberg. -NO-264 60 File note for SS Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler, 151 - 28 April 1942. -NO-220 61 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 11 May 1942, 152 - and secret report concerning high-altitude - experiments. -NO-402 66 Letter, 29 September 1942, and report, 28 July 155 - 1942, from Romberg and Ruff to Himmler - concerning experiments on rescue from high - altitudes. -343-A-PS 62 Letter from Milch to Wolff, 20 May 1942, 172 - regarding continuation of experiments. -343-B-PS 70 Letter from Milch to Himmler, 31 August 1942, 172 - acknowledging receipt of reports by Rascher - and Romberg on high-altitude experiments. -NO-289 72 Letter from Hippke to Himmler, 8 October 1942, 173 - thanking the latter for his assistance in - high-altitude experiments in Dachau. -NO-224 76 Note by Romberg on showing of film in office 174 - of State Secretary Milch and proposed report - to Milch, 11 September 1942. -1612-PS 79 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Rascher, 13 176 - December 1942, and Himmler’s order assigning - Rascher to high-altitude experiments. -NO-610 41 Inmates of the Dachau concentration camp in 898 - different stages of simulated altitude in - the low-pressure chamber; postmortem - dissections of experimental subjects who - died from the effects of high-altitude - experiments. (_See Selections from - Photographic Evidence of the Prosecution._) - - _Testimony_ - -Extracts from the testimony of tribunal witness Walter Neff 177 -Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rudolf Brandt 183 -Extracts from the testimony of defendant Romberg 186 - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1602-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 44 - - LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 15 MAY 1941, CONCERNING HIGH-ALTITUDE - EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS - - [Stamp] -Sigmund Rascher, M. D. - Personal Staff Reich Leader SS - Archives File No. Secret/58 -Munich, Trogerstrasse 56, 15 May 1941 -Highly esteemed Reich Leader, - -My most sincere thanks for your cordial wishes and flowers on the birth -of my second son. This time, too, it is a strong boy, though he arrived -3 weeks too early. I shall take the liberty and send you a small picture -of both children some time. - -Since I want a third child very soon, I feel very grateful to you that -with your help, highly esteemed Reich Leader, the wedding is made -possible. Today I was informed by SS Standartenfuehrer Sollmann on the -telephone that the 165 marks as required for a wedding will be charged -to the account “R” and will be transmitted by the Ahnenerbe. I thank you -heartily! I only need a short certificate concerning Aryan descent for -the Luftwaffe, where the permit was already submitted. Tomorrow, prior -to my departure, I shall dictate a rough text to Nini D; she will then -forward the note to you, highly esteemed Reich Leader. - -I also thank you very cordially for the generous regular allowance of -fruit; this is at present extremely important for mother and children. - -For the time being, have been assigned to the Luftgau Kommando VII, -Munich, for a medical selection course. During this course, where -research on high-altitude flying plays a prominent part, determined by -the somewhat higher ceiling of the English fighter planes, considerable -regret was expressed that no experiments on human beings have so far -been possible for us because such experiments are very dangerous and -nobody is volunteering. I therefore put the serious question: is there -any possibility that two or three professional criminals can be made -available for these experiments? The experiments are being performed at -the Ground Station for High-Altitude Experiments of the Luftwaffe -[Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe] at -Munich. The experiments, in which the experimental subject of course may -die, would take place with my collaboration. They are absolutely -essential for the research on high-altitude flying and cannot, as it has -been tried until now, be carried out on monkeys, because monkeys offer -entirely different test conditions. I had an absolutely confidential -talk with the representative of the Luftwaffe physician who is -conducting these experiments. He also is of the opinion that the -problems in question can only be solved by experiments on human beings. -(Feeble-minded individuals also could be used as experimental material.) - -For the time being, SS men and some SS officers as well are detailed to -the antiaircraft school IV, for studying the range-finding technique. -The material is excellent. Nevertheless, I suggest that selection of -range-finding men among SS troops should be carried out according to the -methods of examination as used by the Luftwaffe. A still better -selection would thus be the result. I am able to judge because I am the -specialist for medical selection with the Luftwaffe range-finding unit, -and all those detailed to these courses once more have to pass my -examination. I therefore take the liberty to send to you from Schongau -the method of selection as drafted by me. For this, I received the War -Merit Cross, 2d Class, with Swords. It will not be a note for -instruction but a draft for a lecture. I prefer to have it forwarded the -direct way rather than that any SS officer should put it down in a -mutilated way during my lectures. A similar instructional note was -submitted to the Reich Ministry for Aviation. - -Thanks to your generosity, the cancer research is progressing well, in -spite of the war. - -I do hope that you, highly esteemed Reich Leader, are in perfect health, -in spite of your tremendous amount of work! - - With my most hearty wishes, I am with - Heil Hitler! - [handwritten] Yours, gratefully devoted, - [Signed] S. RASCHER -[Handwritten] RUSH - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1582-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 45 - - LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO RASCHER, UNDATED, INFORMING HIM THAT - PRISONERS WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR HIGH-ALTITUDE RESEARCH - -AK/104a/LO Bra/V - [Stamp unintelligible May 2 (?) 1941] -SS Untersturmfuehrer Sigmund Rascher M. D. -Munich -Trogerstr. 56 -Dear Dr. Rascher: - -Shortly before flying to Oslo, the Reich Leader SS gave me your letter -of 15 May 1941, for partial reply. - -I can inform you that prisoners will, of course, be gladly made -available for the high-flight researches. I have informed the Chief of -the Security Police of this agreement of the Reich Leader SS, and -requested that the competent official be instructed to get in touch with -you. - -I want to use the opportunity to extend my cordial wishes to you on the -birth of your son. - -I shall refer as soon as possible to the second part of your letter. - - By order - Heil Hitler! - [initials] R BR [Rudolf Brandt] - SS Sturmbannfuehrer -[illegible markings] - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1581-A-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48 - - LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO SIEVERS, 21 MARCH 1942, - CONCERNING RASCHER’S PARTICIPATION IN HIGH-ALTITUDE - EXPERIMENTS - -The Reich Leader SS Personal Staff - -Journal No. AR 704/2 A/Bn. - - [Stamp] - Personal Staff Reich Leader SS - Documentary Administration - Record number AR/704/2 A/Bn. 58 - Fuehrer Headquarters, 21 March 1942 - -To the Reich Chief Manager [Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer] of the “Ahnenerbe” - -SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers - -Berlin—Dahlem - -Dear Comrade Sievers, - -I refer to your inquiry of 9 March 1942 B/151/r1 S/Wo—concerning Dr. -Rascher. - -Reference is made to the subatmospheric pressure experiments which are -being carried out on concentration camp inmates in the Dachau camp by -the air force. The Reich Leader SS has approved these experiments under -the condition that SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher, who is an -Obersturmfuehrer of the air force, takes part in them. I am sure that -Dr. Rascher will be able to give you further details.[22] - - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] BRANDT - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-A-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 49 - - LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 5 APRIL 1942, AND REPORT, - UNDATED, ON HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS - -Sigmund Rascher, M. D. - - 5 April 1942 - [Marginal note] Very interesting. 8-4-42. - [Apparently by Himmler] -Highly esteemed Reich Leader: - -Enclosed is an interim report on the low-pressure experiments so far -conducted in the concentration camp of Dachau. May I ask you -respectively to treat the report as secret? - -A few days ago Reich Physician SS [Reichsarzt SS] Professor Dr. Grawitz -made a brief inspection of the experimentation plant. Since his time was -very limited, no experiments could be demonstrated to him. SS -Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers took a whole day off to watch some of the -interesting standard experiments and may have given you a brief report. -I believe, highly esteemed Reich Leader, that you would be -extraordinarily interested in those experiments. Is it not possible that -on the occasion of a trip to southern Germany you have some of the -experiments demonstrated to you? If the results so obtained by the -experiments are confirmed by further experimentation, entirely new data -will be secured for science; simultaneously, entirely new aspects will -be opened to the Luftwaffe. - -I hope that, thanks to the intended efforts of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer -Sievers, the Luftwaffe will make no difficulties from now on. I am very -much indebted to Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers as he has shown a very -active interest in my work in every respect. - -I thank you respectfully, highly esteemed Reich Leader, for the generous -realization of my proposition to conduct such experiments in the -concentration camp. - -With my best wishes for your personal well-being, I am - - With Heil Hitler - Gratefully yours, - [Signed] S. RASCHER - _FIRST INTERIM REPORT ON THE LOW-PRESSURE CHAMBER - EXPERIMENTS IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMP OF DACHAU_ - -1. The object is to solve the problem of whether the theoretically -established norms pertaining to the length of life of human beings -breathing air with only a small proportion of oxygen and subjected to -low pressure correspond with the results obtained by practical -experiments. It has been asserted that a parachutist, who jumps from a -height of 12 km. would suffer very severe injuries, probably even die, -on account of the lack of oxygen. Practical experiments on this subject -have always been discontinued after a maximum of 53 seconds, since very -severe bends [Hoehenkrankheit] occurred. - -2. Experiments testing the length of life of a human being above the -normal breathing limits (4, 5, 6 km.) have not been conducted at all, -since it has been a foregone conclusion that the human experimental -subject [Versuchsperson—VP] would suffer death. - -The experiments conducted by myself and Dr. Romberg proved the -following: - -Experiments on parachute jumps proved that the lack of oxygen and the -low atmospheric pressure at 12 or 13 km. altitude did not cause death. -Altogether 15 extreme experiments of this type were carried out in which -none of VP’s died. Very severe bends together with unconsciousness -occurred, but completely normal functions of the senses returned when a -height of 7 km. was reached on descent. Electrocardiograms registering -during the experiments did show certain irregularities, but by the time -the experiments were over the curves had returned to normal and they did -not indicate any abnormal changes during the following days. The extent -to which deterioration of the organism may occur due to continuously -repeated experiments can only be established at the end of the series of -experiments. The extreme fatal experiments will be carried out on -specially selected VP’s, otherwise it would not be possible to exercise -the rigid control so extraordinarily important for practical purposes. - -The VP’s were brought to a height of 8 km. under oxygen and then had to -make 5 knee bends with and without oxygen. After a certain lapse of -time, moderate to severe bends occurred and the VP’s became unconscious. -However, after a certain period of accustoming themselves to the height -of 8 km. all the VP’s recuperated and regained their consciousness and -the normal functions of their senses. - -Only continuous experiments at altitudes higher than 10.5 km. resulted -in death. These experiments showed that breathing stopped after about 30 -minutes, while in 2 cases the electrocardiographically charted action of -the heart continued for another 20 minutes. - -The third experiment of this type took such an extraordinary course that -I called an SS physician of the camp as witness, since I had worked on -these experiments all by myself. It was a continuous experiment without -oxygen at a height of 12 km. conducted on a 37-year-old Jew in good -general condition. Breathing continued up to 30 minutes. After 4 minutes -the VP began to perspire and to wiggle his head, after 5 minutes cramps -occurred, between 6 and 10 minutes breathing increased in speed and the -VP became unconscious; from 11 to 30 minutes breathing slowed down to -three breaths per minute, finally stopping altogether. - -Severest cyanosis developed in between and foam appeared at the mouth. - -At 5-minute intervals electrocardiograms from three leads were written. -After breathing had stopped, the electrocardiogram was continuously -written until the action of the heart had come to a complete standstill. -About ½ hour after breathing had stopped, dissection was started. - -_Autopsy Report_ - -When the cavity of the chest was opened the pericardium was filled -tightly (heart tamponade). Upon opening of the pericardium 80 cc. of -clear yellowish liquid gushed forth. The moment the tamponade had -stopped, the right auricle began to beat heavily, at first at the rate -of 60 actions per minute, then progressively slower. Twenty minutes -after the pericardium had been opened, the right auricle was opened by -puncturing it. For about 15 minutes, a thin stream of blood spurted -forth. Thereafter clogging of the puncture wound in the auricle by -coagulation of the blood and renewed acceleration of the action of the -right auricle occurred. - -One hour after breathing had stopped, the spinal marrow was completely -severed and the brain removed. Thereupon the action of the auricle -stopped for 40 seconds. It then renewed its action, coming to a complete -standstill 8 minutes later. A heavy subarchnoid oedema was found in the -brain. In the veins and arteries of the brain a considerable quantity of -air was discovered. Furthermore, the blood vessels in the heart and -liver were enormously obstructed by embolism. - -The anatomical preparations will be preserved and so I shall be able to -evaluate them later. - -The last-mentioned case is to my knowledge the first one of this type -ever observed on man. The above-described heart actions will gain -particular scientific interest, since they were written down with an -electrocardiogram to the very end. - -The experiments will be continued and extended. Another interim report -will follow after new results have been obtained. - - [Signed] DR. RASCHER - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-C-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 50 - - LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO RASCHER, 13 APRIL 1942, - REGARDING HIS SUCCESS WITH HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS - -1174/42 BRa/V - Fuehrer Headquarters, 13 April 1942 - Top Secret -SS Untersturmfuehrer Rascher, M. D. -Munich, Trogerstrasse 56 -Dear Comrade Dr. Rascher, - -Your report of 5.4.1942 has been seen by the Reich Leader SS today. The -tests on which SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers gave a brief report -interested him very much. - -For the further tests I wish you a continuation of the success you have -had so far. - -Best regards also to your wife. - - Heil Hitler! - Yours, - [Signed] B. [R.] BRANDT - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-B-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 51 - - LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER, 13 APRIL 1942, REQUESTING - A REPETITION OF HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS ON PRISONERS - CONDEMNED TO DEATH - -The Reich Leader SS - Fuehrer Headquarters, 13 April 1942 -SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher -Munich 27, Trogerstrasse 56 -Dear Dr. Rascher: - -I want to answer your letter with which you sent me your reports. -Especially the latest discoveries made in your experiments particularly -have interested me. May I now ask you the following: - -1. This experiment is to be repeated on other men condemned to death. - -2. I would like Dr. Fahrenkamp to be taken into consultation on these -experiments. - -3. Considering the long-continued action of the heart the experiments -should be specifically exploited in such a manner as to determine -whether these men could be recalled to life. Should such an experiment -succeed, then, of course, the person condemned to death shall be -pardoned to concentration camp for life. - -Please keep me further informed on the experiments. - -Kind regards and - - Heil Hitler! - Yours - [Signed] H. HIMMLER - -2. Chief of the Security Police and SD. - -3. SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks. - -Copy for your information. - - by order [I. A.] - [initialed] BR. [Rudolf Brandt] - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-D-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 52 - - TELETYPE FROM RASCHER TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 20 OCTOBER 1942, - REQUESTING CLARIFICATION ON THE PARDON GRANTED BY - HIMMLER - - REICH SECURITY MAIN OFFICE - Communication -Communication No. 11194 Urgent -RFSS Munich—Teletype No. 2020, 20 October 1942, 5:25 p. m. -To: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt -Field Command Post [Feldkommandostelle] Hegewald -Highly esteemed Obersturmbannfuehrer: - -Will you please clarify the following case with the Reich Leader SS as -soon as possible? - -In communication RFSS [Reich Leader SS] of 13-1-42 under paragraph 3 it -is ordered that if prisoners in Dachau condemned to death live through -experiments which have endangered their lives, they should be pardoned. -As up to now only Poles and Russians were available, some of whom had -been condemned to death, it is not quite clear to me yet as to whether -the above-mentioned paragraph also applies to them, and whether they may -be pardoned to concentration camp for life after having lived through -several very severe experiments. - -Please answer by teletype via Adjutant’s Office, RFSS, Munich. - - Obedient Greetings, - Heil Hitler! - Yours - [Signed] S. RASCHER - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-E-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 53 - - TELETYPE FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO SCHNITZLER, 21 OCTOBER 1942, CONCERNING - THE PARDON GRANTED BY HIMMLER - - TELETYPE -To SS Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler -Munich - -Please inform SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher with regard to his -teletype inquiry that the instruction given some time ago by the Reich -Leader SS concerning amnesty of test persons does not apply to Poles and -Russians. - - [Signed] BRANDT - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer -21 October 1942 -Bra/Dr. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-218 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 56 - - LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 16 APRIL 1942, REPORTING ON - HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS WITH FATAL RESULTS AND ON EXPERIMENTS - CONDUCTED TOGETHER WITH ROMBERG - - Munich, Trogerstrasse 56, 16 April 1942 -Highly esteemed Reich Leader: - -May I thank you for your letter of 13 April. I am delighted with the -great interest which you, highly esteemed Reich Leader, are taking in -the experiments and their results. I thank you for the inspiration you -have given me in your letter. - -The experiment described in the report of 4 April was repeated four -times, each time with the same results. When Wagner, the last test -person had stopped breathing, I let him come back to life by increasing -pressure. Since test person “W . . .” was assigned for a terminal[23] -experiment, as a repeated experiment held no prospect of new results, -and since I had not been in possession of your letter at that time, I -subsequently started another experiment through which Test Person Wagner -did not live. Also in this case the results obtained by -electrocardiographic registration were extraordinary. - -In accordance with your orders, I tried to contact Dr. Fahrenkamp -immediately upon receipt of your letter. However, I could not speak to -him since he is laid up with angina. In a few days I shall ask again if -Dr. Fahrenkamp is available. - -Meanwhile, at times together with Dr. Romberg, I have carried out -falling experiments from heights of from 16 to 20 kilometers. There, -contrary to theoretical assumptions, it was proved that falling through -space after jumping from an airplane in the stratosphere (pressure -cabinplane) is quite possible, as after severe unconsciousness the test -person regained complete consciousness in each case, at between 7 and 8 -kilometers height when the parachute lever, installed in the chamber, -was pulled. - -Within the next few days, I shall report at length on these experiments -as well as on the above-mentioned Test Person Wagner. - -I also have a request to make: May I take pictures of the various -dissection preparations in the dissecting room of the concentration camp -to make a record of the strange formations of air embolism? In this -connection, my wife has already written to SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. -Brandt. - -Highly esteemed Reich Leader, allow me to close by assuring you that -your active interest in these experiments has a tremendous influence on -one’s working capacity and initiative. - -I am with devoted greeting and - - Heil Hitler! - Yours gratefully devoted - [Signed] S. RASCHER - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-264 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 60 - - FILE NOTE FOR SS OBERSTURMFUEHRER SCHNITZLER, 28 APRIL 1942 - -Frau Rascher was here today in the office and stated the following to me -for you in a few words: - -Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz still insists on participation in the -experiments and on full responsibility. If not, the assignment of Dr. -Rascher to the Weltz Institute must be changed. Weltz personally is -_not_ interested in these experiments. RLM [The Reich Air Ministry] asks -Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz how long the experiments will last and whether -it is justifiable to detail a medical officer for so long a time. RLM -demands from Weltz an opinion on the experiments which he, however, -cannot give, unless he is fully informed about them. Weltz will be in -Berlin with Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke on Friday. Weltz demands a -statement by Friday as to whether he should consider himself as still -participating in the experiments, or whether it is requested that he -should not participate in the experiments. - -The assignment of Dr. Rascher must immediately be changed to “Assignment -to Aviation Test Institute Berlin—Adlershof, Dachau Branch” (not Weltz -Institute), because Weltz—as he stated—intends to cancel the -assignment immediately, if he is not to participate in it. - -_For personal confidential information_ - -Dr. Weltz confidentially informed Dr. Rascher that there is great -mistrust against him in the RLM because of the experiments (SS -membership); there is also animosity in the air force administrative -command (Luftgau) Munich for this reason. - -Munich, 28 April 1942. -Gr. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-220 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 61 - - LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 11 MAY 1942, AND SECRET REPORT - CONCERNING HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS - -Sigmund Rascher M. D. - Munich, Trogerstrasse 56, 11 May 1942 -Highly esteemed Reich Leader: - -Enclosed I am forwarding a short summary on the principal experiments -conducted up to date. A detailed report on the practical as well as the -theoretical results will take some more time. I shall hurry. Since the -material has to be processed the exploitation of the pathological -preparations will take about ½ year though the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute -for Brain Research will help us, I hope. - -Tonight I succeeded in seeing Dr. Fahrenkamp who has relatively -recovered. He appeared to be very interested and I think there will be a -fine and fruitful cooperation. Dr. Fahrenkamp who has an enormous -knowledge most amiably promised to help me in everything. He will give -to you himself his opinion on my heart experiments. From our -conversation I have had the impression that a great field of work will -open up to me yet. I thank you, highly esteemed Reich Leader, for having -opened these opportunities to me to such an extent. - -Unfortunately, the extension of my assignment has not been settled yet; -in accordance with the present regulations, my assignment will be -terminated on 15 May. - -Thanking you again, I am with most obedient greetings and - - Heil Hitler! - Yours gratefully, - [Signed] S. RASCHER -Munich, 11 May 1942 - _SECRET REPORT_ - -Based on results of experiments which up to now various scientists had -conducted on animals only, the experiments in Dachau were to prove -whether these results would maintain their validity on human beings. - -1. The first experiments were to show whether the human being can -gradually adapt himself to higher altitudes. Some 10 tests showed that a -slower ascent without oxygen taking from 6 to 8 hours kept the functions -of the senses of the various VP’s [Versuchspersonen—human experimental -subjects] fully normal up to a height of 8,000 meters. Within 8 hours -several VP’s had reached a height of 9.5 kilometers without oxygen when -bends occurred suddenly. - -2. Normally it is impossible to stay without oxygen at altitudes higher -than 6 kilometers. Experiments showed however that after ascent to 8,000 -meters without oxygen, bends combined with unconsciousness lasted only -about 25 minutes. After this period the VP’s had mostly become -accustomed to that altitude; consciousness returned, they could make -knee bends, showed a normal electrocardiograph and were able to work (60 -to 70 percent of the cases examined). - -3. Descending tests on parachutes (suspended) without oxygen. - -These experiments proved that from 14 kilometers on down severest bends -occurred which remained until the ground was reached. The detrimental -effects caused by these experiments manifested themselves at the -beginning as unconsciousness, and subsequently as spastic and limp -paralysis, catotomy, stereotypy, and as retrograde amnesia lasting -several hours. About 1 hour after the end of the experiment the VP’s for -the most part were still disoriented as to time and locality. The blood -picture often showed a shift to the left; albumen and red and white -blood corpuscles were regularly found in the urine after the experiment; -cylinders were sometimes found. After several hours or days the blood -and urine returned to normal. The changes of the electrocardiograph were -reversible. - -Contrary to descending tests on parachutes without oxygen, descending -tests with oxygen were carried out from heights up to 18 kilometers. It -was proved that on the average the VP’s regained the normal function of -their senses at 12 to 13 kilometers. No disturbances of general -conditions occurred during any of these experiments. Brief -unconsciousness at the beginning of the experiment caused no lasting -disturbances. Urine and blood showed only a slight change. - -4. As the long time of descent on parachutes, under actual conditions, -would cause severe freezing even if no detrimental effects were caused -by lack of oxygen, VP’s were brought by sudden decreases in pressure -with a cutting torch from 8 to 20 kilometers, simulating the damage to -the pressure-machine of the high-altitude airplane. After a waiting -period of 10 seconds, corresponding to stepping out of the machine, the -VP’s were made to fall from this height with oxygen to a height where -breathing is possible. The VP’s awoke between 10 and 12 kilometers and -at about 8 kilometers pulled the parachute lever. - -5. In experiments of falling from the same height without oxygen, the -VP’s regained normal function of their senses only between 2 and 5 -kilometers. - -6. Experiments testing the effect of pervitin on the organism during -parachute jumps, proved that the severe after-effects, as mentioned -under No. 3, were considerably milder. The ability to withstand the -conditions at high altitudes was only slightly improved, while the -bends, since they were not noticed, occurred suddenly -(restraint-loosening effects of pervitin). - -7. Dr. Kliches, of the Charles University in Prague, reports in the -publication of the Reich Research Council: “By prolonged breathing of -oxygen, human beings should theoretically be kept fully fit up to 13 -kilometers. In practice, the limit is around 11 kilometers. Experiments -which I carried out in this connection proved that with pure oxygen no -lowering of the measurable raw energy (ergometer) was noticeable up to -13.3 kilometers. The VP’s merely became unwilling since pains of the -body cavities grew too severe, due to the lowering of pressure between -body and thin air. When pure oxygen was inhaled bends occurred in all 25 -cases only at heights above 14.2 kilometers.” - -As practical result of the more than 200 experiments conducted at -Dachau, the following can be assumed: - -Flying in altitudes higher than 12 kilometers without pressure-cabin or -pressure-suit is impossible even while breathing pure oxygen. If the -airplane pressure-machine is damaged at altitudes of 13 kilometers and -higher, the crew will not be able to bail out of the damaged plane -themselves since at that height the bends appear rather suddenly. It -must be requested that the crew should be removed automatically from the -plane, for instance, by catapulting the seats by means of compressed -air. Descending with opened parachute without oxygen would cause severe -injuries due to the lack of oxygen, besides causing severe freezing; -consciousness would not be regained until the ground was reached. -Therefore the following is to be requested: 1. A parachute with -barometrically controlled opening. 2. A portable oxygen apparatus for -the jump. - -For the following experiments Jewish professional criminals who had -committed race pollution were used. The question of the formation of -embolism was investigated in 10 cases. Some of the VP’s died during a -continued high-altitude experiment; for instance, after one-half hour at -a height of 12 kilometers. After the skull had been opened under water -an ample amount of air embolism was found in the brain vessels and, in -part, free air in the brain ventricles. - -To find out whether the severe psychic and physical effects, as -mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the -following was done: After relative recuperation from such a parachute -descending test had taken place, however, before regaining -consciousness, some VP’s were kept under water until they died. When the -skull and the cavities of the breast and of the abdomen had been opened -under water, an enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels -of the brain, the coronary vessels, and the vessels of the liver and the -intestines, etc. - -That proves that air embolism, so far considered as absolutely fatal, is -not fatal at all, but that is reversible as shown by the return to -normal conditions of all the other VP’s. - -It was also proved by experiments that air embolism occurs in -practically all vessels even while pure oxygen is being inhaled. One VP -was made to breathe pure oxygen for 2½ hours before the experiment -started. After 6 minutes at a height of 20 kilometers, he died and at -dissection also showed ample air embolism, as was the case in all other -experiments. - -At sudden decreases in pressure and subsequent immediate falls to -heights where breathing is possible, no deep reaching damages due to air -embolism could be noted. The formation of air embolism always needs a -certain amount of time. - - [Signed] DR. RASCHER - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-402 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 66 - - LETTER, 29 SEPTEMBER 1942, AND REPORT, 28 JULY 1942, FROM ROMBERG AND - RUFF TO HIMMLER CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS ON RESCUE FROM HIGH ALTITUDES - -German Aviation Research Institute -Berlin-Adlershof, Rudower Ch. 16-25 - [Stamp] Secret -To the Reich Leader SS -Berlin SW 11 -Prinz-Albrechtstr. 8 -Your Ref. - Your communication of DVL-Ref. Day - - R/Ru/Ko 2098/42, 22 September 1942 - Military Secret - -Re: Report “Experiments on Rescue from High Altitudes” - - [handwritten] to files - B [initial] - -Enclosed we submit copies Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of the report “Experiments on -Rescue from High Altitudes” for your files. - - German Aviation Research Institute - per procura - [Signed] DR. ROMBERG - L. RUFF - -[handwritten] -Report-3-received 2 November -[Signed] SIEVERS, SS Oberfuehrer - -_3 enclosures_ - -Personal Staff Reich Leader SS 29 September 1942 -Diary No. 1348/42 To RF - - [handwritten] 1943 - Top Secret [stamp] - EXPERIMENTS ON RESCUE FROM HIGH ALTITUDES.[24] - -_Abstract_: A report is to be made on experiments in which the - possibility of rescue from high altitudes in the - low-pressure chamber is studied. Experiments were made at - parachute sinking speeds up to 15 km. [49,200 ft.] without - oxygen, and up to 18 km. [59,100 ft.] with oxygen - breathing, as well as falling experiments speeds up to 21 - km. [68,900 ft.] altitude with and without oxygen. The - results with practical significance will be discussed - below. -Organization: I. Introduction and statement of the problem. - II. Procedure of the experiment. - III. Results of the experiment. - 1. Descending experiments without O_{2} breathing. - 2. Descending experiments with O_{2} breathing. - 3. Falling experiments without O_{2} breathing. - 4. Falling experiments with O_{2} breathing. - IV. Discussion of the results. - V. Conclusions from the results. - VI. Summary. - Bibliography. - The report includes 28 pages with 3 figures and 6 tables. - -German Aviation Research Institute -For the Institute - [signed]: L. RUFF - The Authors: - [Draft copy signed by] DR. RASCHER - Stabsarzt der Lw. - [signed] DR. ROMBERG. - -Berlin, Adlershof, 28 July 1942. -Rf 401/20 -[page 2 of original] - - I. Introduction and Statement of the Problem - -It is theoretically possible for man to reach as high altitude as he may -wish in an aircraft with a pressure cabin. However, the question must be -settled as to what results or effects the destruction of the pressure -cabin will have upon the human being, who in such cases is exposed in a -few seconds to the low air pressure and thereby to the lack of oxygen, -which is characteristic of high altitude. Of particular practical -interest is the question from what altitudes and by what means the -safest rescue of the crew can be made. In the work at hand, a report is -presented on experiments in which the various possibilities of rescue -were studied under special experimental conditions. Since the urgency of -the solution of the problem was evident, it was necessary, especially -under the given conditions of the experiment, to forego for the time -being the thorough clearing up of purely scientific questions. - - II. Procedure of the Experiment - -The experiments were carried on in a portable low-pressure chamber with -equipment for explosive decompression. The performance of this apparatus -limited the highest altitude attainable to about 21,000 meters [68,900 -feet]. - -In this experimental series, which was to clarify the possibilities of -rescue from high altitudes, the experiments, simulating actual -conditions, were carried out in such a way that rescue with parachute -unfolded (designated as descending experiments) and with parachute -folded (designated as falling experiments) were studied sometimes with -and sometimes without oxygen breathing. Since the altitude or posture of -the body is of essential significance for the demands made by the lack -of O_{2} on the circulation, the experiments were carried out in sitting -and prone positions; and, in descending experiments, in a suspended - -[page 3 of original] - -position in a parachute harness corresponding to the actual position. -For purposes of demonstration certain of the experiments were recorded -on film. Electrocardiograms were made of several experiments in the -experimental series. Oxygen was breathed out of the customary -low-pressure apparatus with continuous flow at altitudes over 10 km. -[32,800 ft.]. The following experimental sequence was chosen: - - 1. Descending experiments without O_{2} breathing. - 2. Descending experiments with O_{2} breathing. - 3. Falling experiments without O_{2} breathing. - 4. Falling experiments with O_{2} breathing. - -The sinking and falling times which were used in the experiments are -tabulated in figures 1 and 2. [Figure 2 not reproduced.] - - III. Results of the Experiments - -_1. Sinking experiments without oxygen breathing_ - -Since a thoroughly dependable parachute oxygen apparatus is not yet -generally available, experimental tests were made to determine from what -altitudes a rescue with open parachute without oxygen is possible. -Therefore, sinking experiments were carried out in which the mask was -taken off after ascent with O_{2} (for speed of ascent of the chamber -see fig. 1), and, after a waiting period of 10 seconds the sinking was -begun. - -In the experiment no altitude sickness occurred at 9 km. [29,500 ft.] as -was expected. - -In the sinking experiments, from 10 km. [32,800 ft.] altitude, typical -altitude sickness occurred after about 2 minutes, i. e., at an altitude -of about 8.6 km. [28,200 ft.], which was indicated by a very pronounced -scrawling in the writing test. However, no loss of consciousness -occurred. (Kloos’ writing test.) - -[page 7 of original] - -The experiments from 12 to 15 km. altitude were made partly during -suspension in a parachute harness, partly in a sitting position, and -partly in a prone position. These experiments show that the body -attitude has a very essential influence on the tolerance for a high -degree of lack of oxygen. Since, besides this, every bodily exertion is -of great importance, in one portion of the experiments six knee bends -were made by the subject during the waiting period before beginning the -descent. These six knee bends consisted of three knee bends while -breathing oxygen followed by deep inhaling and holding of the breath, -and then three more knee bends without oxygen breathing. This procedure -was chosen in order not to neglect the bodily work involved in an actual -parachute jump. The descending experiments from 12 km. [39,400 ft.] -altitude yielded the following average times: - - Table 1 - - Descending experiment │ Unconsciousness │Recovery of consciousness - from 12 km. [39,400 ft.] │ after— │ after— - │ │ -Sitting without knee bends │1′39″ = 10.85 km. │6′38″ = 7.45 km. - │ [35,600 ft.]. │ [24,440 ft.]. -Sitting after 6 knee bends │55″ = 11.4 km. │6′55″ = 7.25 km. - │ [37,400 ft.]. │ [23,786 ft.]. -Suspended in parachute │37″ = 11.65 km. │7′40″ = 6.77 km. -harness │ │ - │ [38,220 ft.]. │ [22,212 ft.]. - │ │ - -It is to be noted in connection with the stated time and altitude values -that the beginning of unconsciousness, or of the recovery, was -calculated from the withdrawal of oxygen, while in most experiments the -sinking or free fall was begun at the expiration of the 10-second -waiting period. Since in addition to this the stages of altitude were -read off at the moment of unconsciousness, small variations from the -times given in figs. 2 and 3 [not reproduced] are possible - -[page 8 of original] - -since, especially in the falling experiments, variations occurred -because of the somewhat crude valve control. These variations, however, -are small and may be overlooked since in any case the fall and sinking -time under practical conditions are dependent on the flying attitude at -the moment of the leap from the catapult seat. In addition to this, the -calculated fall and sinking time are influenced to a high degree under -actual conditions by weight and air resistance. - -It should be kept in mind in regard to the experiments conducted in the -sitting position that the subjects fell over at the beginning of -unconsciousness and so passed the critical time of greatest load on the -circulatory system in a prone position, while those suspended in the -parachute harness remained throughout the experiment in a vertical -position, the most unfavorable position for loading the circulatory -system. - -[Illustration: Figure 1. Speed of ascent in the portable low-pressure -chamber.] - -In the writing test shown above [not reproduced] the occurrence of -altitude sickness in a sinking experiment for 12 km. [39,400 ft.] -altitude is shown in this manner: For example, after 1 minute and 20 -seconds at 11 km. [36,100 ft.] altitude, the writing is interrupted -because of sudden altitude sickness with unconsciousness, and is resumed -after 4½ minutes at an altitude of 8.8 km. [28,870 ft.], with erroneous -writing. At 8.3 km. [27,230 ft.] altitude the writing becomes free of -errors. This is worthy of special attention because in this case a -person has fully recovered mentally at an altitude of 8.3 km. [27,230 -ft.], after 3 minutes of the most severe lack of oxygen, while in -altitude endurance experiments at this altitude severe altitude sickness -sets in after about 3 minutes. Here we are dealing with a process which -in any case is very favorable but which is not yet entirely clear and -which was already observed in earlier experiments of parachute jumps -from great altitudes. Still, it appears from this that a rather long -oxygen lack at altitudes up to 13 km. does not present any great strain -in - -[page 12 of original] - -the sense of using the last reserves, but, on the contrary, the human -organism seems to react to this loading with a certain increase in -resistance to altitude. - -In descending experiments from 13 km. [42,700 ft.] altitude the waiting -time of 10 seconds was retained, but on the other hand exertion in the -form of knee bends was omitted since technical difficulties interfered -with this procedure. - -The experiments involving suspension could be done only in the large -low-pressure chamber, since suspension was impossible in the small -low-pressure chamber for reasons of space. Therefore, the ascent to 13 -km. [42,700 ft.] altitude was carried out slowly in the main chamber -(without explosive decompression) so that when 13 km. [42,700 ft.] was -reached a certain oxygen lack existed. With this oxygen lack the knee -bends would have presented a great burden which would have falsified too -greatly the results of the experiment. The same conditions were also -given in further experiments at higher altitudes in the main chamber. -For this reason, the 13 km. [42,700 ft.] descending experiments were -carried out partly in the sitting position, partly in the sitting -position strapped in, and partly suspended. They yielded the following -average data: - - Table 2 - - Descending experiment │ Unconsciousness │Recovery of consciousness - from 13 km. [42,700 ft.] │ after— │ after— - │ │ -Seated (lying during │50″ = 12.4 km. │8′ 12″ = 7.2 km. -unconsciousness) │ │ - │ [40,672 ft.]. │ [23,620 ft.]. -Seated strapped in │35″ = 12.6 km. │10′ 30″ = 5.85 km. - │ [41,340 ft.]. │ [19,190 ft.]. -Suspended │20″ = 12.8 km. │19′ = 1.6 km. - │ [41,980 ft.]. │ [5,250 ft.]. - -[page 13 of original] - -Since in unfavorable cases in these experiments, namely while suspended, -recovery of consciousness did not occur until 1.6 km. [5,250 ft.] -altitude, it had to be concluded that in jumps from altitudes over 13 -km. [42,700 ft.], recovery of consciousness would follow only after 0 -km., which would mean that in an actual situation the landing would be -made in an unconscious condition. This raised the question of a safe -means of rescue. - -Descending experiments were made in larger numbers from 15 km. altitude, -since it became evident that at this altitude the approximate limits for -what was possible in emergencies had already been reached or essentially -surpassed. After an ascent made as rapidly as possible, using oxygen -apparatus with free flow, the mask was removed immediately upon -attaining 15 km. [49,200 ft.] altitude and the descent was begun. Since -the results of these descending experiments were very typical and -especially impressive it is necessary to present one of these -experiments in detail. The record of an experiment is represented as -follows: - -15 km. [49,200 ft.] Lets the mask fall, severe altitude - sickness, clonic convulsions. -14.5 km. [47,560 ft.] 30 sec. Opisthotonus. -14.3 km. [46,900 ft.] 45 sec. Arms stretched stiffly forward; sits - up like a dog - (“Pfoetchenstellung”), legs spread - stiffly apart. -13.7 km. [44,950 ft.] 1 min. 20 sec. Suspended in opisthotonus. -13.2 km. [43,310 ft.] 1 min. 50 sec. Agonal convulsive breathing. -12.2 km. [40,030 ft.] 3 min. Dyspnea, hangs limp. -7.2 km. [23,620 ft.] 10 min. Uncoordinated movements with the - extremities. -6 km. [19,690 ft.] 12 min. Clonic convulsions, groaning. -5.5 km. [18,040 ft.] 13 min. Yells loudly. - -[page 14 of original] - -2.9 km. [9,520 ft.] 18 min. Still yelling, convulses arms and - legs, head sinks forward. -2-0 km. [6,560-0 ft.] 20-24.5 min. Yells spasmodically, grimaces, bites - his tongue. -0 km. Does not respond to speech, gives - the impression of someone who is - completely out of his mind. -5 min. (after reaching ground Reacts for the first time to vocal -level). stimulation. -7 min. Attempts upon command to arise, says - in stereotyped manner: “No, - please”. -9 min. Stands up on command; severe ataxia; - answers to all questions: “Just a - minute”. Tries spasmodically to - recall his birth date. -10 min. Typical stereotypes of attitude and - movement (catatonia); mumbles - number to himself. -11 min. Holds his head turned convulsively - to the right; tries repeatedly to - answer the first question - concerning his birth date. -12 min. Questions of the subject: “May I - slice something?” (Note: In - civilian work he was a - delicatessen clerk.) “May I pant, - will it be all right if I inhale?” - Breathes deeply, then says, “All - right, thank you very much.” -15 min. On being ordered to walk, steps - forward and says: “All right, - thank you very much”. -17 min. Gives his name; says he was born in - 1928 (born 1 November 1908). - Experimenter asks: “Where?” - “Something 1928” “Profession?” - “28—1928”. -18 min. “May I inhale?” “Yes.” “I am content - with that.” -25 min. Still the question continues: - “Pant?” -28 min. Sees nothing; runs against open - window sash upon which the sun is - shining, so that large lump is - formed on his forehead; says: - “Excuse me please.” No expression - of pain. - -[page 15 of original] - -30 min. Knows his name and place of birth. - Upon being asked for the day’s - date: “1 November 1928”. Shivering - of the legs; stupor continues; - cannot be frightened by the report - of a shot. Dark objects are still - not discerned; subject bumps - against them. Is aware of bright - light; knows his profession; - spacially disoriented. -37 min. Reacts to pain stimuli. -40 min. Begins to observe differences. Falls - continually into his previous - speech stereotypes. -50 min. Spacially oriented. -75 min. Still disoriented in time; - retrogressive amnesia over 3 days. -24 hours Normal condition again attained; has - no recollection of the experiment - itself. - -The events of the descending experiments from 15 km., as shown here -through this example, repeated themselves in a similar way in all the -rest of the experiments. The average data from 20 experiments with 15 -different subjects are as follows: - - Table 3 - - │ │ │ Clear - 15 km. │ Unconsciousness │Subconscious awakening │consciousness - [47,200 ft.]│ after— │ movements │ at 0 km. - │ │ │ - Suspended │16″ = 14.7 km. │20½′ = 1.8 km. │ - │ [48,220 ft.]. │ [5,910 ft.]. │ 18′-90′ - │ │ │ - Lying │20″ = 14.6 km. │14′ = 5 km. │ 15′-80′ - │ [47,890 ft.]. │ [16,400 ft.] │ - -Unconsciousness after discontinuation of oxygen occurs following a short -motor restlessness with severe altitude sickness, whereupon light -spasmodic and then very severe tonic convulsions follow in a condition -of complete unconsciousness. These tonic convulsions lasting virtually a -minute are followed rather suddenly by a phase of complete - -[page 16 of original] - -flacidity with a drop in breathing rate and transition to convulsive -breathing with 3 to 4 breaths per minute until complete cessation of -breathing of 45 seconds duration (post-hypoxemic pseudo-death—Lutz). -Then follows a period of improvement in breathing, until the first -subconsciousness movements announce the gradual recovery of -consciousness, during which, nevertheless, the higher mental functions -are temporarily entirely absent. Further recovery proceeds slowly during -the course of the following ½ to 1½ hours as may be seen from the above -case record. During the time of complete unconsciousness, there was -defecation and urination in the case of most subjects, increased -salivation and, in some cases, vomiting. - -Here we obviously have the conditions which Lutz and Wendt in their -animal experimentation which is referred to in greater detail later -found in falling experimentation with O_{2} breathing and designated as -“post-hypoxemic twilight state” (“Posthypoxaemischen Daemmerzustand”) -since we are dealing with a slow recovery of consciousness, especially -also in view of the mental behavior of the experimental subjects. The -post hypoxemic pseudo-death observed by Wendt and Lutz was not found in -any experiments in the form which they had observed. The severe -condition described above we could designate as hypoxemic pseudo-death -only because it was limited to the period of the most severe O_{2} lack -(on the average, between 13.3 and 12.3 km.). - -In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the actual cause -of the severe mental disturbances and bodily failures (paralysis, -blindness, etc.) attendant upon post-hypoxemic twilight state remains -something of a riddle. It appeared often as though the phenomena of -pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen -lack. In this connection, the subjective accounts made by the authors in -two experiments each were interesting. In the case of Ro. during a half -hour stay at 12 km. [39,400 ft.] with oxygen, - -[page 17 of original] - -only the usual pains attendant with bends occurred. In a further -experiment with a stay of 40 minutes duration at an altitude of between -13 [42,650 ft.] and 13.5 km. [44,290 ft.] there developed very gradually -a condition of weakness, combined with a peculiar headache, which then -led to a considerable slackening of strength in the arms and hands. As a -result of this, Ro. could no longer hold the breathing mouthpiece (for -special reasons in these experiments, Ro. had to breathe with a -mouthpiece and nose clamp) so that it slid out of his mouth. All these -phenomena were still clearly observed by Ro. Ra. returned the mouthpiece -to Ro. However at this point Ro. failed rather suddenly with paleness, -strong cyanosis of the lips and complete unconsciousness. After Ro. had -regained clear consciousness through descent and sufficient O_{2} -breathing, he determined the existence in himself of a complete -paralysis of the legs, weakness of the arms and severe disturbances of -vision. These serious disturbances developed although the time of oxygen -lack and unconsciousness had lasted only about 5 seconds. Following -descent soon after this to 0 km., the paralysis of the legs continued -for about 5 minutes more and the very severe visual disturbances only -cleared up after 2 hours. While this episode of Ro.’s occurred in an -experiment at a special altitude, the disturbances occurred in Ra. at an -altitude of between 12 [39,400 ft.] and 13 km. [42,700 ft.] while he was -breathing sufficient oxygen with a mask and continuous flow into the -circuit. After 10 minutes stay at this altitude, pains began on the -right side with a spastic paralytic condition of the right leg which -increased continually as though Ra.’s whole right side were being -crushed between two presses. At the same time there were most severe -headaches as though the skull were being burst apart. The pains became -continually more severe so that at last the discontinuation of the -experiment became necessary. The pains disappeared when ground level was -reached while the disturbances of the right leg continued about 5 -minutes more. Shortly before the - -[page 18 of original] - -second experiment, Ra. took two tablets of “Antineuralgica” (a coal tar -derivative) and two tablets of pervitin. In the course of the -experiments there occurred only light pains in the right arm and leg, -moderate headaches, but a very severe uncontrollable urge to cough, -actually less severe difficulties than in the foregoing experiment, -although this one was made at 1,000 m. [3,280 ft.] higher. - -Ro. experienced disturbances which in quality resembled the severe -disturbances in the 15 km. [49,200 ft.] sinking experiment, although the -degree of oxygen lack in this experiment was negligible in comparison to -the 15 km. [49,200 ft.] experiment, so that the idea of a combination of -pressure drop phenomena with the phenomena of oxygen lack is definitely -suggested. - -_2. Descending experiments with O_{2} breathing_ - -Since obviously the utmost limits of these experiments had been reached -with the descending experiments from 15 km. [49,200 ft.] without oxygen -breathing, descending experiments with oxygen breathing were conducted -from greater heights. - -In the experiments, the following experimental procedure was chosen: -ascent to 8 km. [26,300 ft.], remaining there 5 to 10 minutes with -oxygen breathing; then turning on the oxygen blower explosive -decompression to a predetermined altitude; 10 seconds waiting time -(experiments from 17 [55,800 ft.] and 18 km. [59,100 ft.], altitude -without waiting time) and descent at sinking speed. In order to imitate -the perpendicular body position as occurs in suspension in a parachute -harness, the experimental subjects had to stand during the experiments -since suspension was not possible in the small decompression chamber. - -In the descending experiments from 15 km. [49,200 ft.] altitude there -was no altitude sickness or only a slight temporary kind. In the further -descending experiments, the following results were obtained (Table 4): - -[page 19 of original] - Table 4.—Descending experiments with oxygen breathing - - Unconsciousness │ From— │ Recovery of - after— │ │ consciousness after— - │ │ -23 sec. = 15.75 km. │16 km. [52,500 ft.] │2 min. 35 sec. = 13.55 - │ │km. - [51,660 ft.] │ │ [44,460 ft.] -10 sec. = 16.8 km. │17 km. [55,800 ft.] │3 min. 50 sec. = 13 km. - [55,120 ft.] │ │ [42,700 ft.] -7 sec. = 17.9 km. │18 km. [59,100 ft.] │10 min. 35 sec. = 8.5 km. - [58,740 ft.] │ │ [27,890 ft.] - -Thus it was shown that unconsciousness developed relatively early in -spite of oxygen breathing, while the following convulsive stage ran its -course in a much less severe form than in the experiments without oxygen -breathing. Primarily spasmodic convulsions with only occasionally light -tonic convulsions developed. Breathing paralysis never set in and upon -recovery of consciousness the experimental subjects were again -completely in control of themselves. The markedly quick development of -unconsciousness was caused by the fact that the subjects were standing -during the experiments (to be considered in comparison with the -corresponding times in the falling experiments with oxygen breathing). -Descending experiments from still greater altitudes were not undertaken, -since in practice there is no need to escape from such altitudes with -open parachute and thus to expose oneself to the danger of severe -freezing. - -_3. Falling experiments without oxygen_ - -Since the results of falling experiments from 12 km. altitude were known -from earlier experimentation and indeed descending experiments up to 15 -km. [49,200 ft.] without oxygen had been conducted within the scope of -this work, falling experiments were begun at an altitude of 14 km. -[45,900 ft.], in order not to increase unnecessarily the number of -experiments. - -[page 20 of original] - -The ascent preceded by explosive decompression from 8 to 14 and 15 km. -altitude, in which the ascent to 8 km. was made with oxygen and the -explosive decompression with continuous flow, followed after 5 to 10 -minutes waiting time. After the removal of the oxygen mask directly in -connection with the explosive decompression, five knee bends were made -during the waiting period of 10 seconds, then descent at free fall -speed. During the explosive decompression the oxygen supply was -interrupted from the outside. The results of these experiments were -(Table 5): - - Table 5.—Falling experiments without O_{2} breathing - - Unconsciousness │ From— │ Recovery of consciousness - after— │ │ after— - │ │ -30 sec. = 13.2 km. │14 km. │65 sec. = 9.7 km. - [43,310 ft.] │ [45,900 ft.] │ [31,830 ft.] -28 sec. = 14.3 km. │15 km. │96 sec. = 7.6 km. - [46,900 ft.] │ [49,200 ft.] │ [24,940 ft.] - -The further experiments up to 20 km. [65,600 ft.] altitude were made -with the same procedure as those up to 15 km. [49,200 ft.], although -without knee bends during the waiting period of 10 seconds, since -unconsciousness would have occurred too soon as a result of the knee -bends and the experimenters had become convinced that rescue from these -altitudes would have to be brought about by abandonment of the aircraft -without bodily exertion (catapult seat). - - (Table 5—Continued) - - Unconsciousness │ From— │ Recovery of consciousness - after— │ │ after— - │ │ -32 sec. = 14.7 km. │16 km. │118 sec. = 6.6 km. - [48,220 ft.] │ [52,500 ft.] │ [21,650 ft.] -27 sec. = 15.9 km. │17 km. │126 sec. = 6.3 km. - [52,150 ft.] │ [55,800 ft.] │ [20,660 ft.] - -[page 21 of original] - - Unconsciousness │ From— │ Recovery of consciousness - after— │ │ after— - │ │ -23 sec. = 17 km. │18 km. │156 sec. = 4.6 km. - [55,800 ft.] │ [59,100 ft.] │ [15,090 ft.] -20 sec. = 18.5 km. │19 km. │173 sec. = 3.7 km. - [60,700 ft.] │ [62,300 ft.] │ [12,140 ft.] -17 sec. = 19.75 km. │20 km. │178 sec. = 3.2 km. - [61,520 ft.] │ [65,600 ft.] │ [10,500 ft.] -15 sec. = 20.875 km. │21 km. │1 min., 10 sec. after - [68,490 ft.] │ [68,900 ft.] │ reaching 0 m. - -From 21 km. [68,900 ft.] altitude only one experiment was made in this -series, just as in the falling experiments, with oxygen breathing since -the pumps achieved the evacuation of the main chamber necessary for a -pressure drop to 21 km. altitude only after hours of overloading and the -fact that the mercury barometer used in these experiments had its limit -of measurement at this altitude. The two experiments were considered -only as an orientation on the behavior of the human organism at this -altitude at which the ebullition point of the blood had already been far -surpassed. A systematic working over of these altitudes must be carried -on with perfected measuring instruments and a two-stage pump aggregate -in a new experimental series. - -The result of this falling experiment from 21 km. altitude was made -unreliable through the fact that the subject experienced a paralysis of -breathing from 11 to 7 km., through which his recovery was doubtless -greatly delayed. However, no permanent damage occurred. - -_4. Falling experiments with oxygen breathing_ - -Falling experiments with oxygen breathing were undertaken only in small -numbers for crude orientation for the following reasons: The altitude - -[page 22 of original] - -was limited by the available equipment to a maximum of 21 km. [68,900 -ft.], but indeed from this altitude falling experiments without oxygen -breathing had already been profitably carried out. It is self-evident -that oxygen breathing during parachute jumps from such extreme altitudes -greatly increases in any case the chances of success of the jump and, -therefore, is to be unconditionally demanded. For that reason it -devolved upon the experimenters only to determine to what degree the -results of the experiments are influenced by oxygen breathing, -especially in regard to the recovery of consciousness, which, of course, -followed without oxygen only at relatively low altitudes. As was to be -expected, these experiments showed clearly the favorable effect of -oxygen breathing. (Table 6): - - Table 6.—Falling experiments with oxygen breathing - - Unconsciousness │ From— │ Recovery of consciousness - after— │ │ after— - │ │ -21 sec. = 19.5 km. │20 km. │87 sec. = 10.55 km. - [63,980 ft.] │ [65,600 ft.] │ [34,620 ft.] -15 sec. = 20.875 km. │21 km. │60 sec. = 12.9 km. - [68,490 ft.] │ [68,900 ft.] │ [42,320 ft.] - -The astonishing value of 60 seconds = 12.9 km. [42,320 ft.] for the -recovery of consciousness in the 21 km. [68,900 ft.] experiment is -explained on the basis that this value was obtained from a single -experiment with one subject, who had shown himself in numerous other -experiments to be especially resistant to altitude. On the other hand -the 20 km. [65,600 ft.] values are the average of a series of -experiments. - - IV. Discussion of the Results - -The descending experiments without oxygen show that the limit for a safe -escape with an open parachute lies approximately at a jumping altitude -of 13 km. [42,700 ft.], since in a jump from 13 km. [42,700 ft.] -recovery of consciousness occurred only at an altitude of 1.6 km. [5,250 -ft.], and so one must already consider the possibilities of landing in -an unconscious condition with all the attendant dangers. This still does -not take into account the heavy demands made on the body by the cold and -the consequent risk. The great effect of the body position during the -experiment makes it obvious how severe is the effect of every additional -demand. While, for example, in the 13 km. [42,700 ft.], experiment upon -a seated subject, recovery of consciousness took place after 8 minutes -12 seconds at an altitude of 7.2 km. [23,620 ft.], the suspended -subjects recovered consciousness only after 19 minutes at 1.6 km. [5,250 -ft.] altitude. Correspondingly also, unconsciousness occurred in the -suspended subjects much more rapidly than in those who were seated. The -same observation was made in the 15 km. [49,200 ft.] experiments, and -indeed those who went through the experiment lying down could already -state name and birth date immediately upon reaching ground level -although they were paralyzed, while those who had been suspended did not -respond at all to speech within this time. Except for one mentally very -sluggish subject, the return of normal condition occurred much earlier -to those who were lying down, namely within 15 minutes. The descending -experiments extended to 18 km. [59,100 ft.] altitude with oxygen -breathing showed that, except for the danger of cold, escape with an -open parachute is possible from these altitudes even though, -practically, no need exists for it. - -Before we go into a discussion on the falling experiments it seems -essential for us to cite the work of Lutz and Wendt on “Animal -Experiments on Parachute Jumping from High-Pressure Cabins.” -Unfortunately this work was not available to us during these experiments -so that we could not build upon the valuable results contained in it and -derived from numerous animal experiments, or upon the experience of the -authors. Although both authors approach with necessary scepticism the -problem of “reaching decisions through animal experimentation upon -questions in - -[page 24 of original] - -which, in the final analysis, the behavior of the human being in -identical situations is of exclusive interest,” they could, and had to -depend upon the previously proved experience that no fundamental -qualitative differences in the manner of reaction to oxygen lack is to -be expected between animals and human beings although there are -considerable quantitative differences which, in this case, mean temporal -differences. However, the results of our experiments show that to some -extent quantitative as well as qualitative differences are present to -the extent that the above animal experiments must lead to great -fallacies which are significant to future developments. This appears -especially in a comparison of results obtained with animals with the -collective results of human experimentation upon escape from high -altitudes through free fall without oxygen. On the basis of animal -experiments, Lutz and Wendt were forced to the conclusion that if oxygen -is breathed before the pressure drop “jumps from 14 km. [45,900 ft.] -altitude can theoretically be survived—at any rate, that is the maximum -altitude * * *,” whereas we were able to carry out human experiments up -to 21 km. [68,900 ft.] altitude without any harm whatever. In all -experiments at 20 km. [65,600 ft.] the subjects recovered clear -consciousness with spontaneous control above 3 km. [9,800 ft.], and so -within a sufficient altitude for actual parachute jumping. As instructed -before the experiment, the subject rang a cowbell hung up in the chamber -by pulling a handle (the equivalent of pulling the rip cord) without a -new order to do so, so that under actual conditions they would certainly -have also pulled the rip cord at the right time. - -Experiments with a pressure drop from 4 km. [13,100 ft.] without -previous breathing in of oxygen were not carried out by us because we -proceeded from the viewpoint that when contact with the enemy is -possible, pressure cabin machines fly with a pressure corresponding to 8 -km. [26,200 ft.] altitude and, therefore, the crews would already be -breathing oxygen in case of a possible pressure drop as a result of -damage to the cabin. - -[page 25 of original] - -Since the falling experiments without oxygen had already given such good -results, falling experiments were begun only at 20 km. [65,600 ft.] -altitude, and, because of the limitations described above, could be -carried out only to 21 km. [68,900 ft.]. In these the results obtained -by Lutz and Wendt were fully corroborated in this respect, that jumps -from above 21 km. [68,900 ft.] can probably be made without danger, and -that ebullition of the blood does not yet take place up to 21 km. -[68,900 ft.] altitude. On the other hand in a falling experiment with -human beings, neither a post-hypoxemic pseudo-death nor a post-hypoxemic -twilight sleep were ever observed (Lutz). - -In conclusion, we must make it particularly clear that, in view of the -extreme experimental conditions in this whole experimental series, no -fatality and no lasting injury due to oxygen lack occurred. - - V. Conclusions from the Results - -For practical rescues by parachute jump from the highest and higher -altitudes the experiments yielded the following: - -The parachute jump without oxygen with immediate opening of the -parachute is possible up to a jumping altitude of 13 km. [42,700 ft.]; -the jump with oxygen equipment can be made at jumping altitudes up to 18 -km. [59,100 ft.]. Advice must be given against jumping and immediate -opening of the parachute since there is considerable danger of freezing -and there is no need to pull the rip cord at high altitudes. However the -experimental data give some indication of the chances of the parachute -jumper whose parachute has become unfolded from whatever cause. - -The jump with a free fall and opening of the parachute at low altitudes -can be made without oxygen equipment up to altitudes of 20 km. [65,600 -ft.], with oxygen up to 21 km. [68,900 ft.], and probably considerably -higher. - -In all the experiments at great height, even in experiments with oxygen -breathing, unconsciousness occurred extraordinarily rapidly and was -naturally preceded by loss of control before that. In one unfavorable -case of a subject in the standing position during a descending -experiment with oxygen, jumping from an altitude of 18 km. [59,100 ft.], -unconsciousness occurred after 7 seconds. One may not count on a longer -time than 10 seconds before loss of control occurs at high altitudes -even with the body at rest. So within that time the airplane must be -abandoned or at least one must activate the ejection seat. The technical -solution of this problem must be found through a different approach. It -is certain only that it will be impossible to climb out under one’s own -power, that one must avoid absolutely all bodily exertion, and that the -time must be kept as short as possible. Rescue is still possible from -very great heights; the critical part is the abandoning of the aircraft. - -Oxygen equipment is absolutely necessary at these altitudes, since it -assures the most favorable conditions for the jump. In case of failure -of the equipment, loss of the mouthpiece or other mishaps, we still need -not count upon serious disturbances or injuries up to 20 km. [65,600 -ft.]. Even jumps from 21 km. [68,900 ft.] will go well if there is -automatic opening of the parachute through barometrical control at 7 to -4 km. [23,000 to 13,100 ft.] altitude. - -The automatic opening is also essential for several other reasons: - -1. In particular cases the parachute jumper is not able to regain -consciousness at a sufficient altitude above the ground because of -collapse or injury. - -2. As a result of cold the jumper may be handicapped by immobility of -his hands, and thus be hindered in pulling the rip cord. - -3. As a result of the unconsciousness resulting from anoxia, the - -[page 27 of original] - -parachute jumper loses all sense of the time which has elapsed since his -jump, as was shown in all experiments, so that it is impossible for him, -with failing eyesight, to estimate his altitude. - -On the other hand it is desirable, on the basis of the reason adduced -under number 3 above, that the opening of the parachute at altitudes -above 7 km. [23,000 ft.] be prevented, since very often the parachute -jumper would pull the rip cord immediately after recovering from his -altitude sickness, which may be too soon and at too high an altitude. - -The best conditions for explosive decompression itself and for the -seconds elapsing until the appearance of altitude sickness are provided -if flying is done at a cabin pressure corresponding to 8 km. [26,300 -ft.] and with oxygen breathing. - -Since it may become necessary to abandon the aircraft for reasons other -than damage to the pressure cabin, the pressure equalization at a -predetermined rate must be made possible by means of a valve. - -In case abandonment does not appear necessary in spite of the loss of -cabin pressure the danger of oxygen lack is still less with the -automatic diving control mechanism than in a parachute jump, since the -dive may be made with considerably greater rate of descent. - - VI. Summary - -Experiments were instituted upon the possibility of rescue from -altitudes up to 21 km. [68,900 ft.]. - -Without parachute oxygen equipment, rescue in descending experiments is -still possible from 13 km. [42,700 ft.], with equipment, from 18 km. -[59,100 ft.]. The danger arising from cold must be considered. - -In falling experiments, rescue from 21 km. [68,900 ft.] altitude with -and without oxygen was proved possible. Automatic parachute opening is -necessary. Ebullition of the blood does not yet occur at 21 km. [68,900 -ft.] altitude. - -[page 28 of original] - -Oxygen must be breathed before explosive decompression. Abandonment must -be by means of the ejection seat. The dive to safe altitude offers good -possibilities of rescue if abandonment of the plane is not necessary -after loss of the cabin pressure. - - Bibliography - -Lutz and Wendt—“Animal Experiments on Parachute Jumping from -High-Pressure Cabins.” Communications in the Field of Aviation Medicine, -Research Report 5/42. - -Romberg—“The Parachute Jump from Great Heights.” German Aviation -Research, Research Report No. 1416. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 343-A-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 62 - - LETTER FROM MILCH TO WOLFF, 20 MAY 1942, REGARDING CONTINUATION OF - EXPERIMENTS - -Field Marshal Milch - Secret - Berlin W 8, 20 May 1942 Leipzigerstrasse 7 -Dear Wolffy! - -In reference to your telegram of 12 May our medical inspector reports to -me that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Air Force at -Dachau have been finished. Any continuation of these experiments seems -essentially unreasonable. However the carrying out of experiments of -some other kind, in regard to perils at high sea, would be important. -These have been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper offices; -Major (M. C.) Weltz will be charged with the execution and Captain (M. -C.) Rascher will be made available until further orders in addition to -his duties within the Medical Corps of the Air Corps. A change of these -measures does not appear necessary, and an enlargement of the task is -not considered pressing at this time. - -The low-pressure chamber would not be needed for these low-temperature -experiments. It is urgently needed at another place and therefore can no -longer remain in Dachau. - -I convey the special thanks from the Supreme Commander of the Air Corps -to the SS for their extensive cooperation. - -I remain with best wishes for you, in good comradeship and with - - Heil Hitler! - Always yours - [Signed] E. MILCH - -SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff -Berlin SW 11. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 343-B-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 70 - - LETTER FROM MILCH TO HIMMLER, 31 AUGUST 1942, ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF - REPORTS BY RASCHER AND ROMBERG ON HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS - -Field Marshal Milch - Berlin, W 8, 31 Aug. 1942 Leipzigerstrasse 7 -Dear Herr Himmler! - -I thank you very much for your letter of 25 August. I have read with -great interest the reports of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg. I am informed -about the current experiments. I shall ask the two gentlemen to give a -lecture combined with the showing of motion pictures to my men in the -near future. - -Hoping that it will be possible for me to see you on the occasion of my -next visit to Headquarters, I remain with best regards and - - Heil Hitler! - Yours, - [Signed] E. MILCH - -Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police Himmler -Berlin SW 11. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-289 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 72 - - LETTER FROM HIPPKE TO HIMMLER, 8 OCTOBER 1942, THANKING THE LATTER FOR - HIS ASSISTANCE IN HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS IN DACHAU - - Berlin W 8, 8 October 1942 Leipziger Str. 7 - Telephone 52 00 24 - -To the Chief of the German Police, Reich Fuehrer SS Himmler, Berlin SW. -11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8 - -Subject: Letter 1309/42 of 25 August 1942 to State Secretary Milch -concerning experiments for rescue from high altitudes. - -Very honored Reich Leader SS, - -In the name of German research on aviation medical problems, I beg to -thank you very obediently for the great help and all the interest shown -in the Dachau experiments; these experiments form a complement which is, -for us, of great value and importance. - -The fact that an atmosphere with so little oxygen can be endured at all -for some time is most encouraging for further research. - -It is true that no conclusions as to the practice of parachuting can be -drawn for the time being, as a very important factor, namely cold, has -so far not yet been taken into consideration; it places an extraordinary -excess burden on the entire body and its vital movements, so that the -results in actual practice will very likely prove to be far more -unfavorable than in the present experiments. - -In the meantime the supplementary tasks required now have been begun. In -part they will have to be finished only after completion of the new -Research Institute for Aviation Medicine of the Reich Air Ministry in -Tempelhof, whose low-pressure chamber will include all cold generating -apparatus and also an installation for producing conditions at a height -of 30 kilometers. - -Freezing experiments in another direction are, in, part, still being -made at Dachau. - -When the work will need once more your sympathetic assistance, may I be -allowed to get in touch with you again through Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher? - - Heil Hitler - [Signed] PROF. DR. HIPPKE - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-224 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 76 - - NOTE BY ROMBERG ON SHOWING OF FILM IN OFFICE OF STATE SECRETARY MILCH, - AND PROPOSED REPORT TO MILCH, 11 SEPTEMBER 1942 - -On 11 September 1942, at 9:45 o’clock, Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Dr. -Romberg met, according to telephonic and oral agreements with Colonel -Pendele, in the antechamber of the State Secretary. We were informed -that the State Secretary had ordered this conference at the present -stage, in the course of which a report on experiments concerning “rescue -from great heights” was to be made, and the motion picture concerning -these experiments was to be shown. The gentlemen waiting in the -antechamber of the State Secretary and in the corridor (most of them -from the experimental staff) were informed that previous to the -conference a motion picture was to be shown, so that all went to the -projection room on the fifth floor. Here quite a large number of people -were already present, so that 30-40 persons were there in all. Among -them were officers, medical and engineer officers—we know some of them -personally—some whose presence surprised us in view of the top secret -nature of the motion picture and of the experiments. No checking of the -persons present was done, nor was there an attendance list. As, after a -short time of waiting, the State Secretary had not come, the motion -picture was shown, without giving us an opportunity for preliminary or -explanatory remarks. During the intermission between the two parts of -the motion picture, Dr. Rascher referred once more to the strict -obligation of secrecy ordered by the Reich Leader SS. After completion -of the showing of the motion picture—the State Secretary had not come, -as he had been summoned to see the Reich Marshal [Goering]—the persons -present still talked a little while about the motion picture, on which -occasion less interest was shown in the subject itself than in the place -of the experiments and the individuals who had been the subjects. After -this period of time, during which we were neither called upon to make -any statements whatsoever nor were we, considering the great forum and -the absence of the State Secretary, inclined to give any reports the -greater part of those present went back to the development conference, -while Oberstarzt Wuerfler, Oberstarzt Professor Kalk, Stabsarzt Bruehl -and Regierungsrat Benzinger asked us to make a report to a small medical -circle. As, however, the State Secretary had prohibited that any report -be made before the distribution had been decided on, we refused to -disclose the results of the experiments. Oberstarzt Kalk stated that he -was willing to report to the State Secretary our wishes concerning the -distribution of the report and the continuation of the experiments. The -film was handed to Colonel Vorwald. - -According to the conference with Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers, I tried -to get the film back on the same day, but Colonel Vorwald was still at -the development conference. When I telephoned the next day and requested -that the film be handed back, Colonel Vorwald declared that he would -like to keep the film until after Sunday, 13 September, since on this -day the Reich Marshal was coming and might perhaps desire to see the -film. Accordingly, I let Colonel Vorwald keep the film for that day. On -14 September, I went to fetch the film from Colonel Vorwald, and was -informed that it had not been shown. On the same day I spoke with -Stabsarzt Bruehl, who informed me that Oberstarzt Kalk had transmitted, -still on 11 September, our wishes concerning distribution and -confirmation of the experiments to the State Secretary. The State -Secretary had approved the distribution schedule, and said that a -continuation of the experiments was not urgent. A few days later the -distribution schedule accepted by the State Secretary was sent to the -German Aviation Research Institute by Colonel Pendele, and the report -was subsequently transmitted by the Institute to the offices concerned. -Since that time I have not received any news either concerning the film -or concerning the report. - - [Signed] DR. ROMBERG - - - - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1612-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 79 - - LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO RASCHER, 13 DECEMBER 1942, AND HIMMLER’S - ORDER ASSIGNING RASCHER TO HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS - -The Reich Leader SS - - Field Command Post - [Rubber stamp]: Personal Staff of Reich Leader SS - Documentation Section - File No.: Confidential - Field Command Post, 13 December 1942 -The Reich Leader SS -Personal Staff -Journal No. 19/10/43 g, Bra/Secret -1. Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. med. Rascher [illegible] * * * SS -2. Reich Leader SS Berlin -3. Medical Office in SS Fuehrungshauptamt (SS Operational Main Office) - Berlin -4. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, Berlin -5. Ahnenerbe Berlin-Dahlem - -Enclosed I am sending you a letter of the Reich Leader SS (copy of same) -with an order for SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher. - -You are requested to duly note and accord needed assistance to -Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher in the carrying through of his -experiments. - - By order - [Initialed] B. - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - - Prinz Albrechtstrasse - [Rubber stamp] Personal Staff of Reich Leader SS - Documentation Section - Journal No.: Confidential - -SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher is being assigned by me to carry -through the following experiments: - -1. Low-pressure chamber experiments—to be carried out under conditions -corresponding to those actually prevailing under normal operating -conditions—for rescue from high and extremely high altitudes. -Determination of changes in chemical equilibrium, as well as gas -equilibrium of human body. Experiments are to be repeated until a -scientifically incontestable basis for findings is established. Testing -of pressure-proof protection garments for the highest altitudes to be -carried out with the assistance of manufacturers of such protective -suits. - -2. Tests for reimparting warmth after total chilling of the human body, -recording all changes of chemical and gas characteristics, are to be -further continued until complete clarification of doubtful questions. I -attach particular value to conditions for experiments coming as close to -actual conditions as possible, particularly as regards reimpartation of -warmth. Sauna equipment available in Dachau should be used in connection -with experiments on reimpartation of warmth. - -3. Experiments on removal of effects due to freezing of parts of human -system, especially the extremities, to be carried through in suitable -form (e. g. applications with Gastein water). - -4. Experiments concerned with adaptation to freezing cold in snow huts -(igloos) to be carried out under varying diets in order to establish -whether adaptation to cold [German text says “Gewaehrung”, i. e. -consent, which evidently is a typographical error] and resistance -increase against freezing is possible. These experiments are to be -carried out on the site of the SS Mountain Retreat Sudelfeld. - -5. The procurement of the apparatus needed for all the experiments -should be discussed in detail with the offices of the Reicharzt SS, of -the SS Main Office for Economic Administration and with the Ahnenerbe. -The necessary chemical products, medical supplies, and glassware will be -made available by the SS Medical Office, Berlin. - -6. Publication of results obtained in such tests subject to my approval -only. - - [Signed] H. HIMMLER - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF TRIBUNAL WITNESS WALTER NEFF[25] - -_EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: * * * When did the high-altitude experiments begin in -Dachau? - -WITNESS NEFF: The first high-altitude experiments were on 22 February -1942. The so-called low-pressure chambers had been brought in earlier -and dismounted. The exact time when the chambers came is not known to -me. - -Q. Why do you remember the date when the first experiments were made in -the low-pressure chambers so well? - -A. The 22d of February is my birthday and the tubercular patients gave a -party for me. On that date the experiments started, and that is why I -remember the date. - - * * * * * - -Q. Will you tell the Tribunal who worked on these experiments? - -A. The experiments were conducted by Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg. Ten -prisoners were selected and were taken to the station as permanent -experimental subjects; and they were told that nothing would happen to -them. In the beginning, the first 3 weeks, the experiments went off -without incident. One day, however, Rascher told me the next day he was -going to make a serious experiment and that he would need 16 Russians -who had been condemned to death, and he received these Russians. Then I -told Rascher that I would not help, and I actually got Rascher to send -me away to the tubercular ward. On that day I know for certain that -Rascher’s SS man Endres or other SS men conducted these experiments. Dr. -Romberg was not there that day. The SS man Endres took the Russian -prisoners of war to Rascher and in the evening the parties were taken -out. On the next day when I returned to the station, Endres was already -there and he said that two more, two Jews, would be killed. I am quoting -what he said. I left the station again, but I watched to see who would -be taken for the experiments. I saw the first one getting into the car. -I could only see his profile. It seemed familiar to me. I knew that man -worked in the hospital as a tailor. I tried to find out if it was really -that man. I went to the place where he worked, and I was told that -Endres had just taken the man away. The first person that I informed was -Dr. Romberg whom I met in the corridor. I told Romberg that this was not -a person who had been condemned to death, that this was a clear case of -murder on the responsibility of Endres. Romberg went with me to see -Rascher to clear the matter up, but it was discovered that Endres had -put this man in the experimental car because he had refused to make a -civilian suit for him. Rascher sent the man back; Endres went with him -and remarked: “Well, then you will get an injection today.” I must say -that Rascher interfered once more and put the man in safety into the -bunker. In the meantime, Endres had brought a second man up, a Czech, -whom I knew very well. Again it was Romberg together with me who talked -to Rascher to stop this experiment or to inquire why a man like Endres -was simply taking people who had never been condemned to death. Rascher -went to the camp commandant, Piorkowski, who personally came to the -station and Endres was transferred to Lublin immediately. - -And now I come to the subject: it was actually the day on which my -comrade and I reached the decision that under all circumstances, no -matter what happened, I would not remain at this—— - -Q. Now, Witness, let me interrupt you just a minute. We will come back -and you can tell the full story then. - - * * * * * - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I will ask the Secretary General to turn this -book over to counsel for the prosecution, and defense counsel may -examine the book. - -MR. MCHANEY: Now, Witness, before the recess, you had been telling the -Tribunal about the high-altitude experiments which you stated began on -22 February 1942, and you had related how early in March Rascher had -experimented upon some 15 Russians who were killed and you stated that -neither you nor the defendant Romberg were present on that occasion and -you then had gone on to relate that an SS man in Dachau named Endres had -brought in the tailor at the camp and wanted him to be experimented upon -and how you recognized the tailor and interceded with Romberg and had -this man returned. Now, before you continue with your story, I would -like to put some specific questions to you. It is true, is it not, that -concentration camp inmates were experimented on during these -high-altitude experiments? - -WITNESS NEFF: Yes. - -Q. About how many concentration camp inmates were subjected to these -high-altitude experiments? - -A. There were 180 to 200 inmates who were subjected to the high-altitude -experiments. - -Q. When, to the best of your recollection, did the high-altitude -experiments end? - -A. The incident of the dead—I am afraid I didn’t quite get your -question. Will you repeat it? - -Q. I am asking you, Witness, when the high-altitude experiments ended, -that is, when they were completed. - -A. During the course of June—maybe the beginning of July, the -low-pressure chambers were taken away. I don’t recollect the exact date, -however. - -Q. And you state that between 22 February 1942 and the end of June, or -the beginning of July 1942, approximately 180 to 200 concentration camp -inmates were experimented on? - -A. Yes. - -Q. What nationalities were the experimental subjects? - -A. I cannot say that with certainty but I think that approximately all -nations were represented there; that is, all nations that were in the -camp, mostly Russians, Poles, Germans, and Jews belonging to any nation. -I do not remember any other nationalities being represented there. - -Q. Were any of these experimental subjects prisoners of war? - -A. Yes. - -Q. What nationalities were they? Do you recall? - -A. They were Russians. - -Q. Now, will you tell the Tribunal how these experimental subjects were -selected? - -A. The experimental subjects who had to be subjected to severe -experiments, experiments that would end in death, were requested by -Rascher from the camp administration and then furnished by the SS; -however, this procedure differed with the so-called series of -experiments and a number of other experiments. For those experiments, -the people were brought into the experimental station straight from the -camp, that is, from the blocks. - -Q. Now, did they, to your knowledge, make any effort in the camp to -secure volunteers for these experiments? - -A. There were certain volunteers for these experiments. That was because -Rascher promised certain persons that they would be released from the -camp if they underwent these experiments. He sometimes promised them -that they would be detailed to more favorable work. - -Q. Now, about how many of such volunteers would you say there were for -the high-altitude experiments? - -A. I do not know the exact number. It was not very high; approximately -10 inmates volunteered for that purpose. - -Q. Did these volunteers come one at a time, or did they come in a body, -or just how did they present themselves to the experimental stations? - -A. Rascher moved around the camp quite a lot and on that occasion the -inmates spoke to him. - -Q. In other words, the camp officials and Rascher and Romberg made no -effort to find volunteers, did they? - -A. I don’t know, but I should not think so. I should not think that they -made great efforts to get volunteers. - -Q. Now, other than these approximately 10 persons who you state -presented themselves as volunteers, were all the rest of the -experimental subjects simply picked out and brought in and experimented -on? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Were any of these prisoners experimented upon released from the -concentration camp because they underwent the experiments? - -A. There is only one man who was released after the high-altitude -experiments. - -Q. And who was that? - -A. An inmate with the name of Sobota. - -Q. And did Sobota assist Rascher in his experimental work other than -simply undergoing the experiment? Was he something in the nature of an -assistant to Rascher? - -A. No. Sobota was one of those persons who had to undergo most of the -experiments and he was also used on one experiment which was conducted -in the presence of the Reich Leader SS. On that occasion he was asked by -the Reich Leader how long he had been in the camp and he promised him -that he would be released. He was later sent to the Group Dirlewanger. - -Q. Was it considered a privilege to be released to the Group -Dirlewanger? - -A. No. The inmates who later were forced to transfer to the Group -Dirlewanger thought that this was the worst thing that could happen to -them. - -Q. Will you tell the Tribunal just what the Group Dirlewanger was? - -A. The Group Dirlewanger was an SS division who received their education -in Oranienburg and who were used for special purposes. At one time 200 -German political inmates in this group were transferred to Russia. All -persons who were forced to join this group were very disgusted at being -forced to join the SS and fight for them. They considered being selected -to join the SS as the very worst disgrace. - -Q. Was the Dirlewanger a special commando group? - -A. Yes, it was a special commando group and was assigned to the most -dangerous spots. However, I only know that from comrades to whom I have -spoken about this matter after the liberation. - -Q. Other than the prisoner Sobota, were there any other concentration -camp inmates released as a result of undergoing the high-altitude -experiments? - -A. I know of no case except Sobota. - -Q. Do you know of any cases where a prisoner condemned to death had his -sentence commuted to life imprisonment because he underwent the -high-altitude experiments? - -A. No. - -Q. Witness, were any political prisoners used in these high-altitude -experiments? - -A. Yes, there were political prisoners who were used in these -experiments. All foreigners were considered political prisoners. - -Q. Witness, tell the Tribunal how one could tell the difference between -a political and a criminal prisoner in a concentration camp? - -A. All inmates had certain squares with letters; the political inmates -had red squares; the German political inmates had a plain red square; -the Poles had a red square with a “P” marked on it; the Russians with an -“R”; all nationalities could be identified by the first letter of their -country. The red square with a yellow star was the Jew. The green -square, on the other hand was the sign of the so-called professional -criminal. Here it must be said that there were quite a number of people -with green squares who did not fall under the classification of -professional criminals, but who were sent to the camp with that square -since the Gestapo could find no excuse to send them into the camp as -political prisoners. - -Q. Now, was this square really a square or a triangle? - -A. It was really a triangle with the head of the triangle pointed down -to the earth. If it pointed upward, it indicated a member of the -Wehrmacht who was sent to the camp for punishment. - - * * * * * - -Q. Witness, were any Jews experimented on in these high-altitude -experiments? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, tell the Tribunal approximately how many prisoners were killed -during the course of the high-altitude experiments? - -A. During the high-altitude experiments 70 to 80 persons were killed. - -Q. Did they experiment on prisoners other than those condemned to death? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Were any of those prisoners who had not been condemned to death -killed during the course of the high-altitude experiments? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Do you have any idea how many may have been killed? - -A. There could have been approximately 40 persons. - -Q. That is, 40 persons were killed, who had not been condemned to death, -out of a total of 70, did you say? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, were some of those killed political prisoners? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Is there any way of telling whether or not a prisoner had been -condemned to death—that is, when the experimental subject arrived in -the pressure chamber, was there any way to know whether he had been -condemned to death? - -A. Once the experimental subjects came from the Bunker, that is, if the -SS brought them out, we could always tell they were prisoners who had -been condemned to death. When the inmates were sent by the camp leader, -and were brought there by him, then we could also tell they were persons -who came from the camp, and that they were not persons who had been -condemned to death. - -Q. Could Romberg know this just as you did? - -A. He could only know it if he tried to find out about it, because he -could hardly differentiate whether the person concerned came from the -Bunker or came from the camps. - -Q. But you could tell that yourself? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Did Romberg ever ask you whether or not these experimental subjects -had been condemned to death? - -A. I do not remember Romberg ever asking me about that. - -Q. Were records kept in the concentration camp which showed whether or -not a man had been condemned to death? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Do you know whether Romberg ever checked these records? - -A. I do not know that. - -Q. You do not know if he ever checked them, is that right? - -A. No. - -Q. Can you remember, approximately, how many deaths Romberg witnessed -during these high-altitude experiments, if any? - -A. I can remember five cases where Romberg was present during cases of -death; whether he was present on other occasions, I do not know. It is -possible, but I am not sure of it. - -Q. You are sure of only five cases? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Did Romberg ever make any objections concerning these deaths? - -A. I do not know of Romberg having made any protests against it. - -Q. He did not make any protest in your presence? - -A. Only at the time when we were concerned with the incident which I -spoke of earlier. I do not know anything about anything else. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT[26] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Now I should like to speak to you about Document Book No. -2, concerning the high-altitude experiments of Dr. Rascher. You said -this morning that you knew Rascher? - -DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT: Yes. - -Q. Did you see him frequently? - -A. Very few times in the course of 4 to 5 years. - -Q. Did he come to your office and speak with you? - -A. Twice when I was about to leave Munich by train, he and his wife -brought a letter for Himmler to the station and gave it to me. - -Q. And what did he want when he came to Himmler’s front office and saw -you? - -A. Either he brought a report or a letter; as I said, this could not -have happened more than 4 or 5 times. - -Q. Were you ever present when Himmler talked with Rascher? - -A. No. I was never present at those conferences. - -Q. Did Rascher ever tell you personally, either before or after a -conference with Himmler, why he had come? - -A. No. Afterwards we never spoke about these visits because I had no -time for that. - -Q. But you do not want to deny that you knew that Rascher was carrying -out experiments on human beings in Dachau? - -A. Yes, that I knew. - -Q. Did you ever visit Dachau yourself? - -A. No. I was never in Dachau nor in any other concentration camp. - -Q. Did you yourself ever take part in experiments on human beings? - -A. No. - -Q. Did you see these photographs which are supplements to the document -books? - -A. I cannot recall ever having seen them. - -Q. Now, please turn to page 53. This is a letter from Rascher to Himmler -in which he makes suggestions to Himmler for the first time that human -being experiments should be carried out in Dachau. In this letter he -says that in these experiments he would certainly have to count on fatal -consequences for some of the subjects. Do you remember receiving this -letter? If not, can you say how you probably would have handled this -letter when it came? - -A. I do not remember the letter. As in all cases I certainly would have -put this letter among the mail that Himmler would read personally, after -one glance through it had assured me that it was a medical matter in -which Himmler was generally interested. - -DR. KAUFFMAN: We are speaking now, your Honor, of 1602-PS, Prosecution -Exhibit 44. - -Q. Now, please look at page 57 of the German document book. This is -1582-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 45, a letter from you to Rascher in which -you tell him that, of course, prisoners will gladly be made available -for high-altitude experimentation. Was this letter written on your own -initiative or is it a case similar to all the others that you have -brought up here, namely, a letter written on orders from Himmler? - -A. This letter does not originate with me. It can be traced back to -clear orders from Himmler. - -Q. Now, please take a look at 1581-A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 48, a -letter that bears your signature, addressed to Sievers. Here you write -that low-pressure experiments are being carried out by the Luftwaffe in -Dachau on prisoners there. Then look at the next Document, 1971-A-PS, -Prosecution Exhibit 49, a letter from Rascher to Himmler. In the first -sentence of this letter there is mention of an enclosed interim report, -and there is no doubt that this interim report was enclosed. Now, did -you read this interim report? - -A. I should assume that I did not because firstly, such medical reports -were quite incomprehensible to me as a layman; and, secondly, because of -all the work which I had to do, I did not have enough time to concern -myself with reports which, first of all, I didn’t understand and, -secondly, did not interest me. Thus it is that I put this report in with -the mail that Himmler was to read without reading it myself. - -Q. Now, please look at 1971-D-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 52, apparently a -teletype message from Rascher to you. Here Rascher asks whether Poles -and Russians are also to be pardoned if they have survived several -severe experiments. In 1971-E-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 53, your answer is -to be found, a teletype message to Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler in -Munich. In this letter you say that experimental subjects are not to be -pardoned if they are Poles or Russians. This document was given -particular stress by the prosecution, and its cruel and atrocious nature -was emphasized. Do you remember this document or can you give us any -explanation of how it came about that you signed this teletype message? - -A. I cannot remember this communication. Of course, I cannot here state -under oath whether this is one of those cases in which a teletype -message was sent on Himmler’s orders with my signature to it. It is also -quite possible that I saw this message and knew its contents and sent it -off, after receiving instructions from Himmler. - -Q. But I should think that you would still remember a document with such -contents today; and yet you say that you do not remember it? - -A. No, I do not. In view of the enormous number of orders that I got -from Himmler, I could not concern myself enough with the details of each -matter in order to be able to remember them for any length of time. - -Q. Do you perhaps know whether you discussed this matter with Himmler -and then waited for his orders? - -A. I cannot say that. I assume that I put the teletype message among his -mail and then received his instructions along with all the rest of his -orders. - -Q. Now, I want to discuss NO-402, Prosecution Exhibit 66. This is a -letter to the German Research Institute for Aviation. This letter -accompanies a long report, the subject of which is rescuing pilots from -high altitudes. Do you have that report now in front of you? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Did you work on this report or at least give a cursory glance at it? - -A. I certainly did not work on it, and I did not even give it a cursory -glance, first of all because it is a medical report, and secondly, -because it is much too long. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROMBERG[27] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. VORWERK: Now, we’ll go back to the point of Rascher’s position in -the experiment. - -DEFENDANT ROMBERG: I said that without Rascher there would never have -been any intention of carrying out the experiments and it would never -have been possible. This can be seen from Himmler’s original assignment. -Practical proof of this is the fact that the experiments were stopped -immediately when there were difficulties with Rascher’s assignment. This -is proved by the letter from Frau Rascher to the Reich Leader SS, dated -24 February 1942. (_NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47._) In this letter Frau Rascher -writes that there were difficulties of command and that the experiments -were stopped; that Rascher had gone back to Schongau. That was the time -when I went back to Berlin. Later on when the experiments were actually -carried out, Rascher had expressly forbidden me to perform experiments -in Dachau without his permission or his presence, so that I never did -perform any experiments without Rascher. I always waited until he was -there. On the days when he was in Schongau no experiments were -performed. Generally, I did not even go to the experimental station. -Sometimes I went to write—but certainly never to carry out experiments. -This rule, although, of course, it often delayed the work, seemed -justified to me because Rascher had permission from Himmler to perform -these experiments and was responsible to him for the experimental -subjects. Also, I myself was under the authority of the camp at Dachau -which seriously restricted my independence, for example, my freedom of -movement or talking to prisoners and similar things. Rascher himself, on -the other hand, had a very free position on the basis of the powers -which he had received from Himmler and because of a special pass. The -Dachau camp was under Himmler’s authority. This is shown by the letter -from Himmler to Milch of November 1942. (_1617-PS, Pros. Ex. 77_ (_Pros. -Ex. 111, Milch Case_).) In this letter Himmler spoke of Holzloehner’s -conduct and adds that the Dachau camp was under his orders, and -Holzloehner would have to submit. It was under these conditions that -Rascher took the low-pressure chamber from the SS in Munich and set it -up there. - -Q. Who took care of the maintenance work on the chamber during the -experiments? - -A. There was not a great deal of maintenance work necessary; loading the -batteries or supplying the oxygen for the experiments was taken care of -by Rascher and was probably paid for by the camp. - -Q. Was Rascher responsible to you for that? - -A. No, Rascher was not responsible to me at all. He was responsible to -the Medical Inspectorate because the chamber belonged to them. - -Q. Did you have ah opportunity to give Rascher any orders or -instructions, or to prohibit anything? - -A. No, that can no doubt be seen from what I have already said. I could -not give him any orders. I certainly could not forbid him to do -anything. Concerning the conduct of these experiments on rescue from -high altitudes, I merely had a certain advisory right as is customary -for two scientists who are working together on the same task when one of -the two has greater knowledge pertinent to the specific task. - -Q. You said the experiments began on 22 or 23 February; was that when -you saw the experimental subjects for the first time? - -A. Yes. On that day I went out to Dachau with Rascher for the first time -and met the experimental subjects for the first time. - -Q. About how many were there? - -A. There were 10 or 12. - -Q. Could it have been 5? - -A. Five? No, there were certainly more than that. - -Q. Could it have been 15? - -A. Yes, that is possible. - -Q. Did you talk to the experimental subjects on that day before the -experiments began? - -A. I believe on that day we mostly talked. Whether any proper -experiments were done at all on that first day, I don’t remember. At any -rate I talked to the experimental subjects and got to know them a little -on the first day. - -Q. What did you talk about with the experimental subjects? - -A. They were quite new surroundings for me, of course. They were all -professional criminals who were in custody. - -Q. How do you know that? - -A. They told me that gradually in the course of conversation. They -didn’t, of course, have complete confidence on the first day and did not -tell me all about their previous convictions. But after careful -inquiries one discovered that they had been condemned for certain -crimes, repeatedly convicted, and finally had been condemned to -protective custody. - -Q. Why did you talk to the experimental subjects on this day? - -A. It is quite natural when one begins to work with such a group that a -certain personal contact is necessary. We had to get to know each other. -I talked to them about their profession, if I may call it that, and of -course I told them something about the experiments, what the whole thing -was all about, what they themselves had to do to cooperate in the same -way as my usual experimental subjects. - -Q. Was the reason for this investigation to prepare the subjects for -their activity or to check whether these people were actually -volunteers? - -A. No. It was more to get to know the subjects personally. The situation -was this: in the discussion with the camp commandant on the basis of the -agreement with Rascher and his authorization from Himmler, a very -definite agreement had been reached to the effect that these people were -to be selected from the volunteers. Therefore, a clear agreement had -been reached on the conditions, about which there could be no doubts -basically. When I met the subjects for the first time personally and -talked to them about the principle of the experiments and their duties, -and so forth, of course I also inquired why they had volunteered—not -because of any distrust of the camp commandant, but just for that -reason. - -Q. You thought, accordingly, that they were volunteers? - -A. I didn’t only think they were. They told me so themselves. - -Q. How do you know that so definitely for each case? - -A. In the course of time—not on the first day but in the course of -time—I talked to all of them frequently in some detail, and gradually -they told me about their previous convictions and what other prisons and -penitentiaries they had been in before they came to the camp, and they -also told me the reasons why they had volunteered. - -Q. Do you mean to say that all the experimental subjects used for the -high-altitude experiments were volunteers? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now before these subjects entered the chamber did you prepare them -for what they had to do and tell them the significance of the whole -thing? - -A. Yes, of course. First I explained the whole question to them in broad -outline, so that they would know what it was about and what the purpose -of the experiment was. In detail I told them specifically what they had -to do in the experiments. There was the writing test during which they -had to write numbers from 1,000 backwards; then the cardinal point was -that after the altitude sickness during the experiments, as soon as they -came to, they had to pull the rip cord. We had a handle in the chamber -connected to a bell. This was to represent pulling the rip cord of the -parachute. This had to be explained to them carefully, otherwise they -wouldn’t have understood it and wouldn’t have reacted correctly. - -Q. Now, before the experiments began, did you have an electrocardiogram -of each separate subject? - -A. Yes and again later on. - -Q. Please explain that. - -A. Rascher had first examined the people to see if they were suitable -for the experiments, so there would be no heart defects or anything like -that. Then in order to get an exact control, before the beginning of the -experiments we took an electrocardiogram of all the subjects. In almost -all the experiments the electrocardiograms were registered and at the -end, when the experiments were finished, we took another -electrocardiogram of all the subjects in order to have material because -perhaps even if there was no visible injury, there might still be some -effects which could only be determined by such tests. - -Q. Now, how long did these experiments on rescue from high altitude -last, approximately? - -A. Well, they really began on about 10 or 11 March and they lasted until -19 or 20 May. - -Q. Following that, you prepared the report which has been submitted by -the prosecution? - -A. Yes. - -Q. In this report you have a sentence saying that during the experiments -on rescue from high altitudes there were no deaths and there had been no -injury to health; is that correct? - -A. Yes, it is correct that that sentence is in the report, and it is -also true that there were no deaths or other injuries. - -Q. But here in the testimony of the witness Neff you heard that there -were deaths? - -A. Yes. - -Q. What do you have to say about that? - -A. In addition to our joint experiments on rescue from high altitudes, -Rascher conducted experiments of his own. He did not tell me the exact -problem; he merely said that he was performing these experiments for -Himmler and that they had to do with explosive decompression sickness -and electrocardiograms. He had apparently carried out secret experiments -for some time on this problem, but then in my presence he continued them -with special subjects. In the course of these experiments the first -death occurred at the end of April in my presence. He told me in the -course of our conversations that he wanted to qualify as a lecturer on -the basis of these experiments which were ordered by Himmler. He wanted -to get Dr. Fahrenkamp into it but this cooperation never came about -because the experiments were broken off. - -Before this death I had no reason to object to the experiments in any -way since Rascher was using other subjects and had a separate assignment -from Himmler for them. My assignment was to perform the experiments on -rescue from high altitudes and I carried it out together with Rascher. - -Q. How many deaths took place in your presence? - -A. Three. - -Q. But Neff spoke of five deaths at which you were present. - -A. There could only have been three. - -Q. Why could there only have been three? - -A. Because I remember. After all they were deaths and they made a -definite impression on me; I know it. - -Q. Why did death in the low-pressure chamber make such an impression on -you? - -A. In the innumerable low-pressure-chamber experiments not only -performed by us, but everywhere in Germany in other institutes, we never -had any deaths at all, and the opinion at that time was that any -necessary problem of aviation medicine could be solved without deaths. - -Q. Now, how did it happen that you were present at these deaths, since -you say these experiments did not belong to your series of experiments? - -A. At the beginning of April or in the middle of April, Rascher told me -for the first time that he was performing experiments with slow -ascension and that he had attempted to work with Fahrenkamp but the work -had been interrupted when the latter was sent away. I said that had -nothing to do with our experiments and was quite unimportant and -uninteresting from our point of view. He admitted that, but said it was -a specific question which especially interested him personally and which -he had to work on. I did not see these experiments, which according to -records here lasted 8 to 10 hours. He probably always performed them on -the days I was absent because these 8 to 10 hours would have interfered -considerably with our experiments. He expanded these experiments and -performed time-reserve experiments at certain altitudes to test the -adaptation which he had been testing before in the slow-ascension -experiments. This was an experiment in which the subject remains at the -same altitude, in contrast to the falling or sinking experiments where -the pressure is constantly increased, that is, when the altitude is -decreased. As his interim reports show, he extended these experiments to -high altitudes and the time reserve was studied either with or without -oxygen. The suggestion for this in part came obviously from other work, -such as that of Dr. Kliches. - -I sometimes observed these experiments. He performed them correctly; he -watched the subjects so that there was, in itself, no objection to these -experiments. The only thing was that they interfered with our -experiments from the point of view of time, and Rascher’s lack of -punctuality was a much greater annoyance in this respect. According to -the documents, as well as the witness Neff, Rascher apparently had -deaths in these experiments. The first deaths were evidently unexpected. -In these unexpected deaths the electrocardiogram and the autopsy -findings, together with his reports, apparently gave Himmler the idea -that these experiments should be carried on further, and in addition -that Fahrenkamp should be called in to extend them as far as possible -scientifically. The fact that Himmler was covering them apparently -induced him in my presence to perform experiments which were dangerous, -and in which deaths occurred. The fact that I had been present several -times at previous experiments brought about my presence at that fatal -experiment, too. - -Q. Did you not think it unusual that during an experimental series which -you and Rascher were to carry out together, Himmler suddenly gave -Rascher orders for special experiments? - -A. Yes. I did not have any specific experience in this direction, but on -principle it is nothing unusual if when two people are working together -on a certain job, one of them receives an additional assignment from his -chief to carry out other work on his own. In addition, Rascher was also -working in Schongau at the same time on behalf of Luftgau VII. I, -myself, had work of my own in the DVL, which my associates were carrying -on and which I inquired about when I happened to be in Berlin. No one -could dispute the fact that Himmler, as Reich Leader SS and Chief of the -German Police and as Rascher’s boss insofar as he was an SS member, had -the right to give assignments to his subordinates and to order them to -carry out experiments on experimental subjects in a concentration camp. - - * * * * * - -Q. Now, in your opinion, what is the distinction between your presence -at the experiments on rescue from high altitudes and your occasional -presence during Rascher’s experiments? - -A. In the experiments on rescue from high altitudes I was not merely -present. I performed the experiments myself. That is, I called the -experimental subjects myself, or sometimes Rascher called them. Of -course, then I explained to the people what they had to do, what they -had to write, what they had to pay special attention to, and that when -they registered the electrocardiogram, in order not to interfere with -it, they had to keep still; and then when the experiment had started I -directed the experiment myself. I watched the altitude of the mercury -indicator, and the calculated speed of ascension and descension, which I -checked with the stop watch. Of course, at the same time I observed the -subject, in other words, the persons in the experiments. In Rascher’s -experiments which were at a certain altitude—that is, the subjects were -ascended to a certain altitude and then remained at that altitude—I -sometimes watched if I happened to be in the low-pressure chamber, but -otherwise he performed these experiments alone just as he did when I was -not present. He even laid great stress on performing them alone. It is -clear to me now that he did not want me to observe any special results; -that is apparently why he performed the other experiments in the evening -or when I was away. - -Q. After the first death was there an autopsy? - -A. Yes, there was an autopsy. - -Q. Did you participate in it? - -A. No, I did not participate. I was present and I watched the autopsy. - -Q. Why did you watch the autopsy if it was not your experiment? - -A. Today, of course, it looks different than it did at the time. It was -a matter of course for me then. Rascher was a colleague of mine. He had -had a fatal accident in his experiments. He asked me to watch the -autopsy, and, of course, I went. I also had a quite natural scientific -interest in the cause of death, and in the findings, and I admit it -frankly, although I am aware of the danger that someone may say I was -interested in the death of the person too, but it happens in every -hospital; all doctors watch the autopsies. If, for example, in the -surgical ward, a patient died after an operation, then the chief -physician, or if he had no time, the senior physician, and the other -doctors who had nothing specifically to do with the patient, watched the -autopsy, and generally even X-ray doctors came over who didn’t know the -patient at all. Besides if I had not been present, that would today be -considered as an incomprehensible lack of interest in the death—if I -had not accepted Rascher’s invitation. If such a death happened during a -centrifugal experiment in our institute, if such an accident had -happened which was not in my field of work, I certainly would have gone -to watch the autopsy. One must learn from the findings; that is one’s -duty as a doctor. One has to look at such things so that one can draw -one’s own conclusions and be able to avoid subsequent accidents. - -Q. Did you see any further autopsies of Rascher? - -A. No. - -Q. Why not? - -A. After this death there was a basic change in my attitude toward -Rascher and the plan to break off the experiments, so that in the case -of later deaths I was not present because of this attitude. I do not -believe he invited me to the autopsies either, and under the conditions -in Dachau I could not go there on my own initiative. - -Q. Did you ask Rascher how this death came about, or did you warn him -before the death? - -A. Yes, I have already said I was present at the experiments just as I -had sometimes been present at the other series of his experiments, -purely out of curiosity, just as in our institute if centrifugal -experiments were performed, I sometimes watched them, too. There was no -reason for distrust but at that time I just watched the experiments out -of curiosity. That was how it happened that I was present by accident at -the experiment and looked at the electrocardiogram of this subject. On -the screen of the electrocardiograph one can see a little point of light -which moves, and that is determined by the heart action. When it seemed -to me that it was getting dangerous, that the heart action was -lessening, I said to Rascher: “You had better stop now.” - -Q. And what did Rascher do? - -A. Nothing. He kept that altitude and later death suddenly occurred. - -Q. When you observed the electrocardiogram was it quite clear to you -that the person would die in the next second? - -A. No, of course not. First of all I had never seen a death from high -altitude. That was the first one I ever saw. I couldn’t know that, and, -in the second place, this death certainly resulted from aero-embolism -and, therefore, suddenly. In the third place, the electrocardiogram -change was, shall we say, doubtful. I myself would have stopped the -experiment at this stage but he didn’t. I only spoke up because I would -have stopped the experiment at that moment. - -Q. Did you speak to Rascher about this after the experiment? - -A. It was not possible for me to object in view of Rascher’s position, -but I told him that such things should not happen. - -Q. And what else did you do? - -A. After this death I went to Berlin and told Ruff about it. Ruff agreed -with me that death should not be allowed to occur in high-altitude -experiments and it had never occurred before. Since Rascher, however, -performed these experiments for Himmler on men who were condemned to -death, we saw no way of preventing Rascher after we had made an official -report. In general when objections were made Rascher simply referred to -the orders from Himmler and to the fact that he was covered by them. It -was quite impossible to remove the chamber from Dachau against Himmler’s -and Rascher’s will. And to give this death as a reason for removing the -chamber was even more impossible. In the first place, Himmler would not -have reacted. He would certainly not have given up the chamber. He might -have started proceedings for treason or for sabotage of an essential war -experiment. In fact, I had reported this to Ruff against my signature to -the contrary in a concentration camp. Like every other visitor to a -concentration camp I had to sign a statement to the effect that -everything I saw and so forth in the camp would be secret. Besides, at -the beginning of the experiments Rascher had received a special telegram -from Himmler ordering silence about these experiments. A specific -obligation to secrecy was strengthened by this order from Himmler. Since -I had reported the matter to Ruff against the secrecy obligation, I also -had to be covered in this respect, and for this reason again we could -not give the death as the reason for removing the chamber from Dachau, -aside from the fact it would not have met with success. - -Therefore, after some consideration we decided that the only possibility -was for Ruff to go to Milch or Hippke and ask to have the chamber -removed, giving the excuse that it was needed at the front. On the other -hand, I was to conclude our experiments quickly so that Himmler could be -told that the experiments were finished and that we could prove this so -that we could claim the right to remove the chamber from Dachau. -Otherwise Himmler would doubtless have ordered the experiments to be -continued until the original goal had been reached, that is, the -clarification of the question of rescue from high altitudes, and he -would doubtless have gone to Goering or even Hitler and arranged to keep -the chamber longer. He would have said that the use of this chamber at -the front was unimportant compared to its use at Dachau in the -experiments, and he would not have released the chamber. - -If I myself had not gone back to Dachau, then Rascher would have carried -out the experiments on rescue from high altitudes alone; and he would -doubtless also have continued his own experiments. That was the reason -why I reluctantly went back to Dachau. - -Q. Now, what was the purpose of your trip to Berlin? - -A. The purpose was this report to Ruff. - -Q. Was that the only purpose? - -A. Yes. - -Q. How did you explain this trip to Rascher? - -A. I told Rascher that I was going because of my wife’s condition. My -wife had had a child in March, and that was a good reason for my going -to Berlin. - -Q. How long were you in Berlin? - -A. Only 1 or 2 days; then I went back to Dachau. - -Q. Now, before you left did you make sure whether Ruff had done anything -in response to your report, whether he had done anything to get the -chamber out of Dachau? - -A. Yes. Ruff tried to get Hippke but was not able to at that time, so -that I really did not know what was going on and what would be -accomplished. - -Q. Did you notice anything special about the chamber when you came back -to Dachau? - -A. Yes. When I came back, the barometer was broken, as Neff has already -said; and I had to go right back to Berlin to have the barometer -repaired. - -Q. How long did you stay in Berlin this time? - -A. As long as the repair required; about 2 weeks. - -Q. Then during this time there were no experiments? - -A. No. - -Q. When did the experiments begin again? - -A. The beginning of May or the middle of May I went back with the -repaired apparatus; then we concluded the experiments as quickly as -possible. - -Q. Did you abbreviate the program which you had planned, or did you -change it in any way, or did you keep it the way it was? - -A. No. We shortened it. We had fewer experiments at the various -altitudes in order to conclude the whole thing as quickly as possible -but in such a way that it was actually completed with adequate results. - -Q. When was the second death at which you were present? - -A. That was a few days after my return to Dachau. - -Q. Did the death of the experimental subject occur in a manner similar -to the first case? - -A. In general, yes. I don’t know exactly what happened. As far as I -recall, it was an experiment at a rather high altitude, and death -occurred quicker, more suddenly. - -Q. And when was the third death at which you were present? - -A. That was right after that, on the next day, or the second day. - -Q. After these deaths, did you ever have any arguments with Rascher -about his experiments and the way in which he performed them? - -A. Yes, we had some minor arguments resulting from my objections, which -he always refused to accept; but after the third death when I started to -object again, he said first that Himmler had ordered it and I wasn’t to -interfere. When I later brought the subject up once more, he lost his -patience, and we got rather excited. I asked him why he was carrying out -these experiments; what he wanted to achieve. He said he wanted to -clarify the problem of caisson diseases, that is bends or aero-embolism, -because Himmler had ordered it. He was the first man to prove these air -bubbles in the blood during an autopsy under water. Also the question of -the electrocardiogram in bends and altitude sickness had to be clarified -as Himmler had given him a special assignment for it, and Fahrenkamp was -to do this work together with him. In addition he wanted to qualify as a -professor with Schittenhelm through this work. - -Then he brought out a letter and read to me that the experiments were to -be continued; that Professor Fahrenkamp was to be called in; and that -people condemned to death who survived the experiments would, of course, -be pardoned. Then he held the letter out to me and asked me whether I -could read Himmler’s signature and whether I wasn’t satisfied with that. - -Q. Was this the letter 1971-B-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 51? - -A. Yes, 1971-B-PS, as Prosecution Exhibit 51. - -Q. And what does this letter indicate? - -A. Well, it showed that Himmler had actually ordered these experiments -and that he, therefore, had complete official coverage, that the -subjects were to be pardoned. It says in the letter: “Of course the -person condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for -life.” Then it says that Fahrenkamp is to be consulted. On the next page -it says that this order from Himmler goes to the Chief of the Security -Police and the SD and to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, with a copy for -their information. - -Q. Did Rascher give you any further explanation of this letter? - -A. Since this letter prevented me from doing anything, I calmly asked -him what idea he had of these experiments, what he wanted to do, what he -wanted to achieve. He said that Dr. Fahrenkamp would help him and that -he would have electrocardiograms for heart failure from the most various -reasons and would compare them with electrocardiograms in the case of -death at high altitudes with the change in severe altitude sickness and -with later recovery. In addition, in the hospital in Munich he had taken -electrocardiograms in cases of heart failure. In Dachau, he said, he had -also registered electrocardiograms when there were executions by -shooting. If he really had evaluated all this material together with a -heart specialist, then it would, of course, have been quite valuable. - - * * * * * - -Q. Now, did you do anything, and what did you do in order to stop -Rascher’s experiments and did you incur any danger and, if so, what? - -A. What I did against Himmler’s orders and against my signed promise to -keep secrecy, the fact that I reported the incidents to my boss who -passed the information on—all this was dangerous. One probably -understands enough about conditions under Himmler to realize that. The -witness Neff has described my attitude to Rascher’s experiments. He -confirmed that I intervened in one case when he was present. Perhaps he -knows nothing about my other objections. In general, the discussions -between Rascher and myself did not take place in the presence of the -prisoners. The low-pressure chamber was removed from Dachau earlier than -intended at our instigation. Against Rascher’s and Himmler’s wishes, it -was never returned to Dachau. The extent of the accusations made by the -SS in this direction is shown by the document. These efforts begin with -Wolff’s telegram to Milch on 12 May, which is answered in the negative -in Milch’s letter of 20 May. (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._) In answer to -further efforts from Himmler, Milch ordered that the chamber was to -remain 2 months longer in Dachau. (_NO-261, Pros. Ex. 63._) At this -time, we had already removed the chamber. On 5 June, Rascher again -writes to Himmler about the low-pressure chamber. Document NO-284, -Prosecution Exhibit 64, is the answer to this letter of 5 June. The -letter itself is, unfortunately, not available. This letter, no doubt, -says that the chamber was removed from Dachau in May, while the -prosecution alleges that the experiments continued until August. Then -there is a certain pause in Rascher’s and Himmler’s efforts, because -Rascher is busy with the cold experiments. When the film is shown in -Berlin in the Air Ministry, Rascher does not forget to tell Milch again -of his wishes in regard to the low-pressure chamber. But hardly has the -first phase of the cold experiments—the series with Holzloehner—been -finished, when he writes to Himmler again on 9 October. (_1610-PS, Pros. -Ex. 73._) He asks Himmler to get him the low-pressure chamber so that he -can continue his experiments and qualify as a professor. In the letter -of 21 October 1942 (_NO-226, Pros. Ex. 75_), Sievers writes to Brandt -about the continuation of the high-altitude experiments which Himmler -wants, but knowing of the existing difficulties, or for other reasons, -he adds that Himmler will no doubt have to write to Milch personally in -order actually to get the chamber. This happens on 27 November 1942 -(_NO-269, Pros. Ex. 78_)—a letter from Wolff to Milch, on behalf of -Himmler. The definite request for the low-pressure chamber, which is -expressed in this letter, is given definite emphasis by mention of the -opposition of the Luftwaffe doctors. I learned from a telephone call -from Sievers, which he mentioned in his testimony, that he was to buy a -low-pressure chamber for Rascher on behalf of Himmler. I was greatly -astonished at this telephone call at the time, because I knew very well -that Rascher certainly didn’t want to have this made public in any way. -Now, this telephone call has been cleared up. Then I informed Ruff of -this call and he had Becker-Freyseng take further steps, as he said here -yesterday. In an official letter to various SS agencies, dated 13 -December 1942 (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79_), Rascher is given the assignment -by Himmler personally to carry out high-altitude experiments. On 14 -March 1943 (_NO-270, Pros. Ex. 110_), Rascher tells of his discussions -with Hippke and again says that he wants to carry out low-pressure -chamber experiments, together with me; and finally, on 18 November 1943 -(_NO-1057, Pros. Ex. 463_), he tries again, through the Reich Research -Council in agreement with Himmler, to get a mobile low-pressure chamber -in order to carry out experiments. Those are Rascher’s and Himmler’s -efforts but, nevertheless, Rascher never again had a low-pressure -chamber at his disposal for experiments. - -Q. Well, what do you want to prove by these statements? - -A. This no doubt proves clearly how great Rascher’s and Himmler’s -efforts were and that my conduct under these circumstances was not only -not cowardly, but that it was much more clever and much more successful. -Even if I had had any legal obligations to prevent him by force, if I -had had any obligations to attack Rascher and if I had tried and been -unsuccessful, then I would have been locked up or killed and Rascher -would have been able to continue his experiments for a long time without -any restriction. - -Q. At that time, was there any possibility in Germany to resist, and in -what did you see such possibility? - -A. There were only three types of resistance possible. First of all, -emigration for a person who was able; second, open resistance which -meant a concentration camp or the death penalty, and to my knowledge, -never met with any success; third, passive resistance by apparent -yielding, misplacing and delaying orders, criticism among one’s friends, -in short, what writers today call “internal emigration.” But that really -doesn’t have much to do with the question. As far as the direct question -of prevention is concerned, I would like to say something more. To take -a comparison from the medical field, it is unknown to me and I cannot -imagine, for example, that an assistant of a scientific research worker -who is performing infections with a fatal disease, for example, leprosy, -on a prisoner, that this assistant should prevent the scientist from -carrying out this infection by force—perhaps by knocking the hypodermic -syringe out of his hand and crying “You mustn’t do that, the man might -die!” I could imagine that some assistant might, for personal reasons, -refuse to participate in such experiments, but I cannot imagine that if -there were a trial against this doctor the prosecution would demand that -the assistant should have prevented the scientist in this manner. - -Q. Then, you are convinced that prevention by force was impossible? - -A. Yes. - -Q. But could you not have filed charges, for example, with the police or -with the public prosecutor, against Rascher? - -A. Yes, of course, I could have, but if I had gone there and said, -“Rascher has performed experiments ordered by Himmler—by the Chief of -the German Police and whatever else he was—the Reich Leader SS, the -State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior,” they would probably -have said: “Well, we can’t do anything about it. If he has orders, then -we can’t do anything about it.” - - * * * * * - ------ - -[18] Jews who had had sexual intercourse with German women with their -consent. - -[19] Very similar arguments were advanced by counsel for defendant -Romberg. - -[20] The witness Neff was called to testify as a Tribunal witness and -not as a prosecution witness. - -[21] See Vol. II, judgment is case of United States _vs._ Erhard Milch. - -[22] Last sentence is crossed out and replaced by one in German -shorthand. - -[23] Translator’s Note: “Terminal” as used here means “resulting in -death”. - -[24] These studies were carried out in conjunction with the research and -educational society “Ahnenerbe.” - -[25] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, December -17-18, 1947, pp. 595-695. - -[26] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, March -24, 25, and 26, 1947, pp. 4869-4994. - -[27] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, May 1, -2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1947, pp. 6764-7032. - - 2. FREEZING EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf -Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were -charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal -conduct involving freezing experiments (par. 6 (B) of the indictment). -On this charge the defendants Handloser, Schroeder, Rudolf Brandt, and -Sievers were convicted. The defendants Karl Brandt, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, -Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were acquitted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the freezing experiments -is contained in its final brief against the defendant Sievers. An -extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 199 to 206. A -corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these -experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants -Sievers and Weltz. It appears below on pages 207 to 217. This -argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 219 -to 278. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ - _Freezing Experiments_ - -Before the high-altitude experiments had actually been completed, the -freezing experiments were ordered to be performed by the defendant Weltz -and his subordinate Rascher. This can be seen from a letter of 20 May -1942 from Milch to Karl Wolff. (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._) A short time -later, Rascher had a conference with Hippke and the experimental team -was changed to include Jarisch, Holzloehner, and Singer. Rascher -reported these orders to Himmler on 15 June 1942, and passed on Hippke’s -request to have the experiments conducted in Dachau. He stated: “It was -also decided that the inspector [Hippke] would issue orders to me at all -times during the experiments.” (_NO-283, Pros. Ex. 82._) The research -assignment was issued by the Department for Aviation Medicine (2 II B) -under Anthony, with the defendant Becker-Freyseng as his deputy. -(_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88._) - -The cold-water freezing experiments began on 15 August 1942 and -continued until the early part of 1943. They were performed by -Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, all of whom were officers in the -Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. Holzloehner and Finke collaborated -with Rascher until December 1942. As Rascher said in a paper on his -medical training: “By order of the Reich Leader SS and -Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke, I conducted ‘Experiments for -the Rescue of Frozen Persons’ (started on 15 August 1942), in -cooperation—for 4 months—with the Professor Dr. Holzloehner and Dr. -Finke both of Kiel University.” (_NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115._) Rascher also -said that: “Since May 1939 till today I have been in military service -with the Air Force.” The memorandum was dated 17 May 1943. It should -therefore be borne in mind that during all of the high-altitude and -substantially all of the freezing experiments, Rascher was on _active -duty_ with the Luftwaffe, not the SS. It was not until after May 1943 -that he went on active duty with the Waffen SS. He was of course -supported by both the Luftwaffe and the SS in these experiments. - -The witness Neff, who was an inmate assistant in the experiments, -testified that freezing experiments in the concentration camp Dachau -started at the end of July or in August 1942. They were conducted by -Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke. In October, Holzloehner and Finke left -and Rascher proceeded alone to conduct freezing experiments until May -1943. Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke used ice-cold water for their -freezing experiments. The experimental basin had been built 2 meters -long and 2 meters high in Rascher’s experimental station, Block 5. (_Tr. -pp. 626-8._) The experiments were carried out in the following manner: -The basin was filled with water and ice was added until the water -measured 3° C. The experimental subjects, either dressed in a flying -suit or naked, were placed into the ice water. Narcotics were frequently -not used. It always took a certain time until so-called “freezing -narcosis” made the experimental subjects unconscious, and the subjects -suffered terribly. The temperature of the victims was measured rectally -and through the stomach by galvanometer. They lost consciousness at a -body temperature of approximately 33° C. The experiments actually -progressed until the experimental persons were chilled down to 25° C. -body temperature. An experiment on two Russian officers who were exposed -naked to the ice-cold water in the basin was particularly brutal. These -two Russians were still conscious after 2 hours. Rascher refused to -administer an injection. When one of the inmates who attended the -experiment tried to administer an anaesthetic to these two victims, -Rascher threatened him with a pistol. Both experimental subjects died -after having been exposed at least 5 hours to the terrible cold. (_Tr. -pp. 629-631._) Approximately 280 to 300 experimental subjects were used -for this type of freezing experiment, but in reality, 360 to 400 -experiments were conducted since many experimental subjects were used -two or three times for experiments. Approximately 80 to 90 experimental -subjects died. About 50 to 60 inmates were used in the -Holzloehner-Finke-Rascher experiments and approximately 15 to 18 of them -died. Political prisoners, non-German nationals, and prisoners of war -were used for these experiments. Many of the inmates used had not been -“condemned to death.” The subjects did not volunteer for the -experiments. (_Tr. pp. 627-8._) - -Even though one assumes that prisoners condemned to death were used in -all of the experiments, which is not true, the “defense” that they -volunteered on the agreement that their sentences would be commuted to -life imprisonment is invalid. During the high-altitude experiments, -Himmler had directed that in further experiments where the long -continued heart activity of subjects who were killed was observed, -criminals condemned to death should be used and, if they were revived, -they should be “pardoned” to concentration camp for life. (_1971-B-PS, -Pros. Ex. 51._) Rascher apparently construed this order to apply to the -freezing experiments also. On 20 October 1942, Rascher advised Rudolf -Brandt that until then only Poles and Russians had been used for such -experiments and that only some of these persons had been condemned to -death. He inquired whether Himmler’s “amnesty” applied to Russians and -Poles. (_1971-D-PS, Pros. Ex. 52._) Brandt told him that it did not -apply. (_1971-E-PS, Pros. Ex. 53._) - -Dry-freezing experiments were carried out by Rascher in January, -February, and March 1943. One experimental subject was placed on a -stretcher at night and exposed to the cold outdoors. He was covered with -a linen sheet, but a bucket of cold water was poured over him every -hour. He remained outdoors until the morning and then his temperature -was taken with a thermometer. In the next series the experimental plan -was changed, and experimental persons had to remain naked outdoors for -long hours without being covered up at all. One series was carried out -on 10 prisoners who had to remain outdoors overnight. Rascher himself -was present during approximately 18 to 20 experiments of that type. -Approximately three experimental subjects died as a result of the -dry-freezing experiments. (_Tr. pp. 636-7._) - -On the order of Grawitz and Rascher, a mass experiment on 100 -experimental subjects was to be carried out. As Rascher was not present, -Neff was in the position to frustrate the experiment by taking the -experimental subjects indoors, and therefore no deaths occurred during -this experimental series. The longest period that experimental subjects -were kept outdoors in the cold was from 6 p. m. of one day to 9 a. m. of -the following morning. The lowest temperature Neff can recollect during -the dry-freezing experiments was 25° body temperature. As Rascher had -prohibited that experiments were to be carried out under anaesthetics, -the experimental subjects suffered great pain and screamed to such an -extent that it was impossible to carry out further experiments. Rascher -therefore requested Himmler’s permission to carry out such experiments -in the future in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Non-German nationals -and political prisoners were among the experimental subjects. None of -them was sentenced to death. They had not volunteered for the -experiments. (_Tr. pp. 637-9._) - -In connection with the freezing experiments, Neff further testified that -in September 1942 he received orders from Sievers to take the hearts and -lungs of five experimental subjects who had been killed in the -experiments to Professor Hirt in Strasbourg for further scientific -study. The travel warrant for Neff had been made out by Sievers, and the -Ahnenerbe Society paid the expenses for the transfer of the bodies. One -of the five experimental subjects killed had been a Dutch citizen. (_Tr. -p. 633._) Sievers visited the experimental station quite frequently -during the freezing experiments. (_Tr. p. 635._) - -Neff’s testimony is corroborated by the affidavits of the defendants -Rudolf Brandt and Becker-Freyseng (_NO-242, Pros. Ex. 80_; _NO-448, -Pros. Ex. 81_) and the testimony of the witness Lutz (_Tr. pp. 266-76_), -Vieweg (_Tr. p. 431_), and Michalowsky (_Tr. pp. 878-83_), and by the -documentary evidence in the record. - -On 15 June 1942, Rascher informed Himmler that the Inspector of the -Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Hippke, sought permission for cold -experiments to be conducted by Rascher and Holzloehner in the Dachau -concentration camp. (_NO-283, Pros. Ex. 82._) On 10 September 1942, -Rascher submitted his first intermediary report on the freezing -experiments to Himmler. In the covering letter Rascher stated that -Holzloehner, who participated in the execution of the experiments on -behalf of the Luftwaffe, intended to lecture on the subject of freezing -in the “cold conference” of the Luftwaffe on 26-27 October in Nuernberg. -Rascher informed Himmler that “Sievers, who surveyed the experiments in -Dachau last week, believed that if any report was to be made at a -meeting, I should be called upon to submit the report.” (_NO-234, Pros. -Ex. 83._) The intermediary report itself shows on its face that -fatalities occurred as a result of the Rascher-Holzloehner-Finke -experiments and advocated rapid rewarming of severely chilled persons. -Rascher considered that rewarming with animal heat would be too slow, -and that experiments in this respect would be unnecessary. He voiced a -similar opinion as to the use of drugs for the purpose of rewarming. -(_1618-PS, Pros. Ex. 34._) Himmler, when acknowledging the receipt of -Rascher’s report on 22 September, directed nevertheless that the -experiment with rewarming by means of drugs and body heat should be -made. A copy of this order of Himmler’s was forwarded to Sievers on 25 -September. (_1611-PS, Pros. Ex. 85._) - -On the basis of this order Rascher approached Sievers to make -arrangements for four female gypsies to be procured at once for the -purpose of rewarming experimental subjects. (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._) It -was apparently Sievers’ effort in this regard which resulted in a series -of telegrams to transfer these women from the Ravensbrueck concentration -camp to Dachau. Rudolf Brandt actually directed the transfer. (_1619-PS, -Pros. Ex. 87._) The four women arrived in November 1942 in Dachau. Three -of them were used for rewarming of frozen experimental subjects, one -being excluded because she was a “Nordic” type. That the experimental -subjects were not volunteers is plain from a remark of one of these -women. “Rather half a year in the brothel than half a year in the -concentration camp.” (_NO-323, Pros. Ex. 94._) This series of -experiments, which was not only murderous but obscene, was carried out -by Rascher between November 1942 and February 1943. His report to -Himmler reveals that one of the experimental subjects died as a result -of this series of experiments. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) - -On 8 October 1942, Stabsarzt Professor Anthony of the Medical -Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe approached Himmler with the information -that the results of the wet-freezing experiments carried out by Rascher -in cooperation with Holzloehner and Finke were to be lectured upon by -Holzloehner during the “cold conference” on 26-27 October in Nuernberg. -(_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88, compare NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._) On 16 October -Rascher also asked Himmler’s permission to release the results of the -freezing experiments during these “cold conferences.” (_NO-225, Pros. -Ex. 89._) On the same day Rascher submitted to Himmler his final report -on the freezing experiments as far as they had been carried out in -collaboration with Holzloehner and Finke. This report did not include -experiments for rewarming by means of drugs and of animal body heat, -which at that time were still in progress. (_1613-PS, Pros. Ex. 90._) - -This report on “Cooling Experiments on Human Beings” by Holzloehner, -Rascher, and Finke, corroborates fully the testimony of Neff concerning -this series of the wet-freezing experiments and proves that many -fatalities occurred. It shows that some of the experimental subjects -were exposed to this terrible type of experimentation without receiving -anesthetics, which would have alleviated their pain considerably. The -sufferings of the experimental subjects were vividly described. Foam -appeared round the mouths of the experimental subjects, and breathing -difficulties and lung oedema resulted. The cooling of the neck and back -of the head of the experimental subjects caused especially painful -sensations. Progressive rigor, which developed very strongly in the arm -muscles, cyanosis, and total irregularity of the heart activity were the -symptoms observed by the experimenters. Hot baths were advocated as the -best treatment for severely chilled persons. Fatalities resulted from -heart failure and brain oedema, and measures for protection against such -results were discussed at great length. (_NO-428, Pros. Ex. 91._) - -Sievers denied that Rascher reported to him on the freezing experiments -but admitted that he received occasionally Rascher’s reports from -Himmler. (_Tr. pp. 5684-5._) But by the testimony of the witness Neff it -is not only proved that Rascher submitted to the Ahnenerbe monthly, -quarterly, and semi-annual reports, describing in detail the nature and -status of his experimental research (_Tr. p. 635_), but also that the -final report of Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke (_NO-1428, Pros. Ex. -91_) was forwarded to him. (_Tr. p. 681._) - -On 24 October Himmler acknowledged the receipt of this report which he -had read “with great interest” and charged Sievers with arrangements for -“the possibility of evaluation at institutes which are connected with -us.” (_1609-PS, Pros. Ex. 92._) - -On 26 and 27 October 1942, the conference on “Medical Problems Arising -from Distress at Sea and Winter Hardships,” sponsored by the Inspector -of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Hippke, under the chairmanship -of Anthony and with the assistance of Becker-Freyseng, took place in -Nuernberg. At this conference Holzloehner delivered his lecture on the -freezing experiments under the title “Prophylaxis and Treatment of -Freezing in Water.” The very detailed clinical observations described by -him excluded the possibility that only observations on human beings _who -were rescued_ had been made, and made it clear that experiments on human -beings had been conducted. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex. 93._) Moreover, Rascher -made a statement following Holzloehner’s lecture, which clearly revealed -that the experiments had been carried out on concentration camp inmates. -This report caused a sensation among the officials present at the -lecture. It was made clear that deaths had occurred. (_Tr. p. 272._) -Sievers has denied having received a report on this conference (_Tr. p. -5689_), but the entry of 12 January in his diary for the year 1943 shows -that he discussed with Rascher the “procurement of memoranda on the -conference concerning the effects of cold in Nuernberg.” (_NO-538, Pros. -Ex. 122._) - -On 6 November 1942, Rascher forwarded a memorandum to Himmler’s personal -staff, the office of the defendant Rudolf Brandt, regarding cooperation -with Dr. Craemer of the Medical Research Station for Mountain Medical -Troops at St. Johann. This was a school subordinated to Handloser as -Army Medical Inspector. In this memorandum Rascher advocated -dry-freezing experiments on concentration camp inmates in the mountain -region of Bayrischzell. The purpose was to investigate whether injuries -of the extremities due to freezing would have a better prognosis on -persons accustomed to cold than on persons unaccustomed to it. Rascher -said that Craemer had heard the report in Nuernberg and was very -enthusiastic about the experiments. He requested to see some in -progress. (_NO-319, Pros. Ex. 96_; _1579-PS, Pros. Ex. 97_.) Himmler -gave his permission for this type of dry-freezing experiment in an order -dated 13 December 1942, in which he lists Rascher’s assignment for the -execution of high-altitude and three different types of freezing -experiments. Copies of this order were submitted to various SS agencies -and to the Ahnenerbe Society. (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79._) Himmler’s -letter contained the following directive: - - “5. The procurement of the apparatus needed for all the - experiments should be discussed in detail with the offices of - the Reichsarzt SS, of the Main Office for Economic - Administration, and with the Ahnenerbe. * * *” - -The evidence proves that prior to 21 October 1943, Rascher received an -assignment from Blome of the Reich Research Council to conduct open-air -freezing experiments. (_NO-432, Pros. Ex. 119._) Sievers aided Rascher -in the matter of obtaining the location and personnel for these -experiments. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._) - -On 13 January 1943, Rascher had a conference with Grawitz and the -defendant Poppendick concerning the freezing experiments. In this -conference Rascher’s freezing experiments were discussed in detail. He -stressed the point that he was working with the Ahnenerbe and that he -reported to the Ahnenerbe. The documentary note of Rascher’s on this -conference shows on its face that wet-freezing experiments had been -conducted by him and that Grawitz requested him to carry out further -freezing experiments with dry cold until he would “have a few hundred -cases.” This documentary note was forwarded by Sievers to the defendant -Rudolf Brandt on 28 January. (_NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103._) In his covering -letter Sievers requested Brandt’s opinion as to what attitude he and -Rascher were to take in respect of their position to Grawitz, with the -implied request that Brandt should strengthen his position with Grawitz, -who considered it “an unbearable situation to have a non-physician give -information on medical matters.” What Sievers wanted to achieve was an -intervention of Brandt with Himmler on his behalf and, therefore, he -stressed his personal importance by saying: - - “My duty merely consists in smoothing the way for the research - men and seeing that the tasks ordered by the Reich Leader SS are - carried out in the quickest possible way. On one thing I - certainly can form an opinion—that is, on who is doing the - quickest job. - - “If things are to go on in the future as SS Gruppenfuehrer - Grawitz desires, I am afraid that Dr. Rascher’s work will not - continue to advance as fast and unhampered as hitherto.” - (_NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103._) - -On 17 February, Rascher forwarded his report on the results of the -experiment in which animal warmth was used for the rewarming of severely -chilled persons. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) In his accompanying letter -to Himmler, he informed him that he was conducting dry-cold experiments -in Dachau. Thirty experimental subjects had been experimented upon and -had been exposed to cold out of doors from 9-14 hours, thereby reducing -their body temperature to 27°-29° C. The extremities of the experimental -subjects were frozen white. Rascher suggested a large series of -experiments in the Auschwitz concentration camp. This place would be -suitable for such experimentation because it was colder there, and the -spacious open country within the camp “would make the experiments less -conspicuous, as the experimental subjects _yell_ when they freeze -severely.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) Himmler gave -Rascher permission to carry out additional freezing experiments in the -concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin. (_1615-PS, Pros. Ex. 109._) - -Rascher’s letter to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, dated 4 April 1943, -reveals that another series of dry-freezing experiments had been carried -out on inmates of the Dachau concentration camp during a period of heavy -frost weather. Some of the experimental subjects were exposed to cold -of -6° C. in the open air for 14 hours and had reached an internal -temperature of 25° C. (_NO-292, Pros. Ex. 111._) The three fatalities -which, according to Neff’s testimony, resulted from the dry-freezing -experiments, apparently occurred during this series of experiments. -(_Tr. pp. 637-8._) - -On 11 April 1943, Rascher submitted to Himmler a brief report concerning -“freezing experiments on human beings exposed to the open air.” -(_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._) The report itself is not available, but the -letter of the defendant Rudolf Brandt of 16 April to Rascher proves that -the defendant Gebhardt received it from Himmler for study. (_NO-241, -Pros. Ex. 113._) A conference between Rascher and the defendant Gebhardt -took place in Hohenlychen on 14 May in the presence of the defendant -Fischer. Gebhardt discussed with Rascher the freezing experiments and -other experimentation carried out in the Dachau concentration camp and -invited Rascher to collaborate with him. Rascher feared to lose his -independence and turned to Sievers to settle this affair in a tactful -way as Gebhardt was a very close friend of Himmler, and Rascher, -therefore, feared his eventual enmity. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex. 116._) -Sievers, in turn, approached Brandt in this matter on 22 May and -requested information whether Himmler had given any definite directive -to Gebhardt in regard to Rascher’s sphere of action and work. He further -asked Brandt’s intervention on behalf of Rascher by saying: - - “I entrust you with this affair and ask you particularly to use - it only for your strict personal information so that Dr. Rascher - does not encounter any difficulties with SS Gruppenfuehrer - Professor Dr. Gebhardt.” (_NO-267, Pros. Ex. 117._) - -When Rascher visited Gebhardt in Hohenlychen, the latter encouraged him -to embark upon a career of university lecturer. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex. -116._) Rascher followed this suggestion and Sievers supported him -wholeheartedly and collaborated with the defendants Brandt and Blome to -have Rascher appointed university lecturer. (_NO-229, Pros. Ex. 118_; -_NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121_.) That Rascher’s thesis for habilitation was -based on the freezing and high-altitude experiments is proved by -Rascher’s memorandum on his medical training which he wrote for the -purpose of his habilitation (_NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115_) and other evidence -in the record. (_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._) - - c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ - _The Freezing Experiments_ - -Freezing experiments on human beings were carried out in Dachau -concentration camp from the end of 1942 on. - -It cannot be denied that a ruthless carrying-out of these experiments -was liable to inflict torture and death upon the persons experimented -on. Here, too, it seems necessary to distinguish between two groups of -experiments. One group comprises the experiments carried out by -Professor Holzloehner, Dr. Rascher, and Dr. Finke, and the other one, -those carried out by Rascher alone. The first group of experiments -easily permits the assumption that the possible effects of the -experiments on the persons subjected to them were taken into -consideration. After all that has become known about Rascher by now, the -assumption is justified that, during the experiments carried out by -Rascher alone, considerations of the effect on life and health of the -persons used were not of primary importance. The only exceptions were -probably the experiments Rascher carried out in the presence of third -persons who were not involved. - -On the occasion of administrative conferences he had to attend in -Dachau, Sievers met Professor Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, and Rascher who -had just finished a freezing experiment. The person experimented on was -placed under an arc of light [Lichtbogen]. That is all Sievers saw of -this experiment. (_German Tr. p. 5684._) - -Then Sievers watched a second freezing experiment. Himmler had -instructed Professor Hirt of Strasbourg to have a look at Rascher’s work -on freezing, since he (Himmler) obviously had come to the conclusion -that Rascher alone was not sufficient for the clarification of these -scientifically extensive and difficult questions. For this experiment a -professional criminal was introduced whom a regular court had sentenced -to death for robbery and murder. Sievers and Dr. Hirt made sure about -this by examining the files of the criminal police department of the -Dachau concentration camp. Dr. Hirt then asked the person to be -experimented on whether he realized that the experiment might prove -fatal to him. The person to be experimented on answered in the -affirmative. - -By personally questioning the person to be experimented on, Sievers then -made sure that he agreed to the experiment. The person in question -answered in the affirmative and added: “If it does not hurt.” This -assurance could be given since the experiment was carried out under full -narcosis. Sievers did not take part in the entire experiment, but he saw -that it was carried out under full narcosis. (_German Tr. pp. 5685-86._) - -The witness Dr. Punzengruber, at that time an inmate of the Dachau -concentration camp and from 1942-1943 assigned to Dr. Rascher’s station -as a chemist, confirms that the person used had been condemned to death. - -The same witness confirms that Sievers was not present during other -freezing experiments. Dr. Punzengruber could establish this because his -laboratory was located next to the room where Dr. Rascher carried out -his experiments. (_Affidavit of Dr. Punzengruber, 14 March 1947._) - -A further presence of Sievers at freezing experiments has not occurred -and has not been claimed from any side. - -In order to prove Sievers’ participation in the freezing experiments, -the prosecution pointed out the following documents: - - Rascher’s letter of 10 September 1942 to Himmler. “SS - Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers, who observed the experiments in - Dachau last week, is of the opinion that if during a convention - there would be a report at all, I, too, would have to be called - in for reporting.” (_NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._) - - Himmler’s letter of 22 September 1942 to Rascher in which the - former instructs Rascher to carry out experiments in quick - increase of body temperature and increase of body temperature - through medicaments and animal heat [medikamentanimalische - Erwaermung], Sievers received a copy of this letter for - information on 25 September 1942. (_1611-PS, Pros. Ex. 85._) - - Rascher’s letter of 3 October 1942 to Dr. R. Brandt which - contains the information that he (Rascher) had asked Sievers to - transmit at once a teletype communication to the camp commander - stating that four female gypsies from another camp must be - procured immediately; that furthermore he had asked Sievers to - take steps to have the low-pressure chamber put at his disposal; - he finally mentioned that he informed Sievers about the failure - of the planned report to Field Marshal Milch. (_NO-285, Pros. - Ex. 86._) - - Sievers’ note of 6 November 1942 concerning Rascher’s transfer - to the SS. (_NO-288, Pros. Ex. 95._) - - Letter, dated 12 January 1943, from the Reich Chief Manager - [Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer] of Ahnenerbe to SS Obergruppenfuehrer - Wolff, concerning Rascher’s transfer to the Waffen SS. (_NO-236, - Pros. Ex. 101._) - - Letter, dated 28 January 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer - of Ahnenerbe to the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS - concerning the taking of Dr. Rascher’s work under the protection - of Ahnenerbe in pursuance of Dr. Rascher’s conversation on 13 - January 1943 with the Chief Reich Physician [Reichsarzt] of the - SS, Dr. Grawitz. (_NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103._) - - Note, dated 4 February 1943, of the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of - Ahnenerbe concerning Dr. Rascher’s report to the medical - inspection [Sanitaetsinspekteur] of the Luftwaffe on his - activities since he was declared unassigned [zur Disposition]. - Furthermore Rascher should go to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel on 7 February 1943. (_NO-238, Pros. - Ex. 104._) - - Letter, dated 17 May 1943, from Dr. Rascher to the - Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe concerning Rascher’s - statement on his report to SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. - Gebhardt on 14 May 1943. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex. 116._) - - Letter, dated 22 May 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of - Ahnenerbe to Dr. R. Brandt concerning Rascher’s statement on his - report to SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt. (_NO-267, - Pros. Ex. 117._) - - Letter, dated 27 September 1943, from the - Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt concerning - Dr. Rascher’s establishment as a college professor - (Habilitation). (_NO-229, Pros. Ex. 118._) - - Letter, dated 21 March 1944, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of - Ahnenerbe to Dr. R. Brandt concerning the establishment of Dr. - Rascher as a college professor. (_NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121._) - -The prosecution furthermore refers to the testimony given on 17 and 18 -December 1946 by witness Neff. Neff testified that Sievers frequently -was at the experimental station; that during experiments he was present -several times; that, however, he could not remember whether Sievers had -been present during experiments which ended fatally. - -The prosecution furthermore accuses Sievers of having procured female -concentration camp inmates to be used in the rewarming experiments -[Wiedererwaermungsversuche]. In this connection the following was -submitted: - - Letter, dated 3 October 1942, from Dr. Rascher to Dr. Brandt: - “* * * Today I asked Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers to pass on - immediately a teletype communication to the camp commander in - which is stated that four female gypsies must be procured from - another camp at once.” (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._) - - Telephone call [Fernspruch] of 7 October 1942 from camp - commander Weiss to Dr. Brandt, concerning the putting at the - disposal of staff physician [Stabsarzt] Dr. Rascher “of the four - women for experimental purposes as ordered by the Reich Leader - SS”. (_1619-PS, Pros. Ex. 87._) - - Teletype communication, dated 8 October 1942, to SS - Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, concerning the departure from their - original station of “the four women ordered by the Reich Leader - SS”. - - Dr. Rascher’s report of 5 November 1942 on concentration camp - prostitutes [KL-Dirnen]. Refusal, on account of her Nordic - racial characteristics, to use one of those women, and - corresponding report to the camp commander and to the adjutant - of the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-323, Pros. Ex. 94._) - - Witness Neff estimates that 10 women from the Ravensbrueck - concentration camp were put at disposal for experiments with - body heat [animalische Waerme]. (_German Tr. p. 632._) - -The following is to be said to the prosecution’s accusation that Sievers -played an important part in procuring female concentration camp inmates -to be used for the rewarming of persons used in experiments: - -Nowhere, except in the letter, dated 3 October 1942, from Dr. Rascher to -Dr. Brandt does there exist any indication that such an assumption might -be justified. But this letter only states that Dr. Rascher had asked -Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers immediately to pass on to the camp -commander a teletype communication reporting that four female gypsies -must be procured from another camp at once. (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._) - -The fact that the order to carry out experiments concerning the increase -of temperature through medicaments and body heat [medikamentanimalische -Erwaermung] was given by Himmler is proved beyond doubt by 1611-PS, -Prosecution Exhibit 85. - -Furthermore, I point to the interrogation of Dr. Romberg. (_German Tr. -pp. 6864-65._) - -Sievers claims not to have done anything in this connection since the -orders originated with Himmler himself. Consequently there was nothing -caused by his own initiative. (_German Tr. pp. 5685-86._) - -At that time Rascher was at Dachau concentration camp most of the time, -while Sievers came there very rarely. Therefore it was much easier for -Rascher than for Sievers to inform the camp commander of his wishes. - -Rascher refused to use one of the four women for experiments in -rewarming through body heat because this woman possessed beyond doubt -the characteristics of the Nordic race. Rascher reported this to the -camp commander and to the adjutant of the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-323, -Pros. Ex. 94._) In this connection, too, Sievers did not play any part. - -The prosecution furthermore accuses Sievers of taking part in Dr. -Rascher’s dry-freezing experiments [Trockenkaelteversuche]. - -Sievers is not mentioned in the following documents submitted in this -connection: NO-319, Pros. Ex. 96; 1579-PS, Pros. Ex. 97; NO-431, Pros. -Ex. 99; 1580-PS, Pros. Ex. 107; 1615-PS, Pros. Ex. 109; NO-292, Pros. -Ex. 111; NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112; NO-241, Pros. Ex. 113; NO-432, Pros. Ex. -119. - -These letters are neither addressed to him nor signed by him. Neither -have copies of them reached him nor have they passed through his hands. - -The letter, dated 12 January 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of -Ahnenerbe to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, contains the following -passage: “Since the freezing experiments depend on the season, valuable -time is lost as long as Dr. Rascher is not available.” (_NO-236, Pros. -Ex. 101._) - -The witness Neff did not testify that Sievers knew of the dry-freezing -experiments [Trockenkaelteversuche]. - -Sievers knew through Himmler’s order of 13 December 1942, that Rascher -was supposed to carry out dry-freezing experiments. (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. -79._) Only during this trial did Sievers come to know that Rascher -carried out such experiments in Dachau. Himmler had ordered these -experiments to be carried out on the terrain of Berghaus Sudelfeld. They -were planned for the winter of 1943-44. Sievers faked inquiries as a -result of which the terrain at Sudelfeld was supposed to be unsuited and -by this he succeeded in not having the dry-freezing experiments carried -out during the winter of 1943-44. The experiments, which Himmler then -ordered for the winter of 1944-45, did not take place because Rascher -was arrested in the spring of 1944. (_German Tr. pp. 5689-90._) - -Since the dry-freezing experiments in the mountains, ordered by Himmler, -did not take place at all, Sievers can rightfully claim to have helped -to prevent them. - -The freezing experiments which, beginning at the end of August 1942, -were carried out in Dachau concentration camp, originated from a -scientific research order the medical inspector [Inspekteur des -Sanitaetswesens] of the Luftwaffe had given Stabsarzt Professor Dr. -Holzloehner on 24 February 1942. At Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher’s suggestion, -corresponding experiments were carried out on human beings. For this -research work an experimental group “Seenot” (“Hardships at sea”), -consisting of Professor Dr. Holzloehner as chief, and Stabsarzt Dr. -Rascher and Dr. Finke, was organized. (_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88_; _NO-268, -Pros. Ex. 106_; _NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115_.) The freezing experiments were -carried out in agreement with the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-286, Pros. Ex. -88._) In his letter, dated 19 February 1943, the medical inspector of -the Luftwaffe thanks the Reich Leader SS for the great help which the -cooperation with the SS afforded in carrying out the research work. -(_NO-268, Pros. Ex. 106._) On 6 March 1943 the medical inspector of the -Luftwaffe confirmed in a letter to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff that he had -at once agreed to freezing experiments on human beings. (_NO-262, Pros. -Ex. 108._) - -The prosecution argues that Sievers gave special support to Rascher as a -person and thus he revealed that he also wanted to support Rascher’s -experiments. Therefore reason exists for comment on Rascher’s -personality and Sievers’ attitude toward him. - -Dr. Rascher was staff physician (Stabsarzt [Captain, M. C.]) of the -Luftwaffe reserve and at the same time a member of the general SS, -holding the rank of an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer. In a well-planned scheme he -always put this last mentioned position and his direct connection with -Himmler in the foreground. Orally or in writing he submitted all his -wishes to Himmler; to him directly did he send the reports on his work. -He referred to Himmler whenever he wanted to assert himself and his work -before other official agencies such as, for example, the Luftwaffe. He -appealed to Himmler when the chief physician of the SS [Reichsarzt SS] -Dr. Grawitz, and Professor Dr. Gebhardt, did not give him the -recognition and the support he believed were due him. Through Himmler he -tried to effect his establishment as a university lecturer. (_NO-283, -Pros. Ex. 82_; _NO-234., Pros. Ex. 83_; _NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103_; -_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105_; _1580-PS, Pros. Ex. 107_; _NO-270, Pros. Ex. -110_; _NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112_.) - -There can be no doubt that on account of his protection by Himmler he -showed an autocratic mind toward his surroundings and also toward his -military superiors, brutality toward his inferiors, and disgusting -servility toward his protector, Himmler. (_German Tr. p. 674._) - -In the Dachau concentration camp he was able to move without -restrictions and without control by accompanying guards. This was -impossible for occasional visitors like Sievers. (_German Tr. p. 5672_; -_German Tr. p. 5320_; _German Tr. pp. 6542-43_; _German Tr. p. 8620_; -_German Tr. pp. 8697 and 8887-88_; _Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck Ex. 12_.) - -Holding the rank of a commanding general, the medical inspector of the -Luftwaffe deemed it advisable to assure SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff in -his letter of 6 March 1943 that he “would discuss the entire problem in -_old comradeship_ with Rascher personally.” (_NO-262, Pros. Ex. 108._) - -A commanding general deemed it advisable to adopt this attitude, -contrary to all military customs, toward a staff physician because by -this conciliatory attitude, inconceivable under other circumstances, he -wanted to avoid a controversy with the latter on account of the latter’s -connections with Himmler. - -What Rascher thought of Medical Inspector Dr. Hippke’s attitude is -revealed in the letter of 14 March 1943 to Dr. Rudolf Brandt in which he -states: - - “I would like to point out the extraordinary amiability of the - inspector and his carefulness in all remarks relating to the - SS.” (_NO-270, Pros. Ex. 110._) - -To make sure that Himmler would under all circumstances be informed -about Rascher’s conference with Medical Inspector Hippke, he continues: - - “May I respectfully ask to inform, wherever that seems necessary - to you, the Reich Leader SS of my report.” (_NO-270, Pros. Ex. - 110._) - -The statement that Witness Dr. Punzengruber made about Rascher is very -characteristic: - - “His (Rascher’s) connections were so strong that practically - every important superior trembled in fear of the intriguing - Rascher, who consequently held a position of enormous power.” - (_Sievers 44, Sievers Ex. 45._) - -Rascher’s servility toward Himmler is already revealed by the bombastic -phrases with which he closes his letters to Himmler. To give a few -examples only: - - Letter dated 17 February 1943, from Rascher to Himmler: “With - most obedient regards I remain in honest gratitude with Heil - Hitler your very devoted S. Rascher.” (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. - 105._) - - Letter, dated 11 April 1943, from Rascher to Himmler: “With most - obedient regards and Heil Hitler I remain always, devoted to you - in gratitude, your S. Rascher.” (_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._) - - Letter, dated 10 September 1942, from Rascher to Himmler: “In - grateful admiration with Heil Hitler your very devoted S. - Rascher.” (_NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._) - -The picture of Rascher is completed by the testimony that personally he -went to the highest authorities only. (_German Tr. p. 7966._) - -Sievers is also brought into connection with Dr. Rascher’s attempt to -establish himself as a university lecturer. - -In his “educational history” [“Ausbildungsverlauf”] Rascher mentions -that the Reich Leader SS (Himmler) ordered him to establish himself as a -university lecturer with one of his two papers: “Attempts at Rescue from -High Altitude” [“Versuche zur Rettung aus grossen Hoehen”] and “Attempts -at the Saving of Frozen Humans” [“Versuche zur Rettung ausgekuehlter -Menschen”]. (_NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115._) - -By a letter, dated 12 August 1943, from Dr. Rudolf Brandt of the -personal staff of the Reich Leader SS, Sievers is entrusted with this -affair. This letter is not at our disposal. On 27 September 1943, that -is after more than 6 weeks, Sievers answers that he introduced Rascher -to Professor Dr. Blome and SS Brigadefuehrer Mentzel. The former had -talked to Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel of Marburg. On 21 March 1944, that -is almost 6 months after the letter just mentioned, Sievers reports to -Dr. Brandt on the further development of the case of Dr. Rascher’s -establishment as a university lecturer. The attempt in Marburg had -failed and consequently they would have to try to establish Rascher as a -lecturer at Strasbourg University. (_NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121._) - -Rascher’s arrest freed Sievers from the necessity of taking any further -action. The fact that Sievers was involved, as far as the establishment -as a university lecturer is concerned, not only in Rascher’s case, is -revealed, for example, by Sievers’ 1943 diary, entry of 9 February 1943 -concerning the establishment as a lecturer of Dr. Schuetrumpf (_NO-538, -Pros. Ex. 122_); furthermore, entry of 22 February 1943 concerning the -establishment as a lecturer of Dr. Rudolph; furthermore, Sievers’ 1944 -diary, entry of 22 February 1944, concerning the establishment as a -lecturer of Dr. Schmidt-Rohr. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._) - -If, in case of Rascher’s establishment as a lecturer, Sievers was acting -only as in other similar cases of members of Ahnenerbe, then this was -one of his tasks as Reich manager [Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer] of Ahnenerbe -and he cannot be charged with special activity on Rascher’s behalf. - - * * * * * - -There is no indication that Sievers had known, before the experiments -started, that they could become immoderate or inhuman. Neither as far as -planning nor as far as the direction was concerned nor in any other way -had Sievers anything to do with the carrying out of the experiments. - -Furthermore the question must be answered whether Sievers did not gain -knowledge through Rascher’s reports, which he received while the -experiments were carried out, of the criminal character of Rascher’s -experiments. - -The prosecution submitted the following reports of Dr. Rascher: Final -report, dated 10 October 1942, of Professor Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, -Dr. Rascher (_NO-428, Pros. Ex. 91._) Interim report, dated 15 August -1942, of Dr. Rascher. (_1618-PS, Pros. Ex. 84._) Report, dated 17 -February 1943, of Dr. Rascher. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) These reports -were sent by Rascher directly to Himmler as can be ascertained from the -documents themselves or from the accompanying letters. None of the -documents indicates that a copy of the reports went to the Ahnenerbe or -that they came to Sievers’ knowledge in some other way. Sievers denies -that he obtained knowledge of these reports. - -Sievers did not take part in the conference of 26-27 October 1942, as -can be clearly seen from the list of those present. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex. -93._) Sievers, also, never received a written report on the conference. -Also the secretary of many years’ standing of the Ahnenerbe, the -witness, Dr. Gisela Schmitz, has stated that she never saw reports about -experiments of Rascher. Since all the incoming mail was delivered first -to her she would necessarily have seen any such reports. (_Sievers 45, -Sievers Ex. 46._) Even if Sievers—as he did not—should have obtained -knowledge of one or another of the reports, he cannot be expected to -have formed an independent opinion on the permissibility of human -experiments from the point of view of medical professional ethics. - -Sievers had neither the power nor the opportunity to interfere with the -sub-chilling experiments, or to prevent them or bring them to a stop. It -must be pointed out again and again that Sievers was competent only for -administrative affairs. - -Everything that Sievers could do for the prevention of the experiments -was done. In the cases of the experiments at Dachau, Sievers’ influence -was nil. On the other hand he was able to prevent some experimental -activity on Rascher’s part by procrastinating the dry-cold experiments -[Trockenkaelteversuche] which should have been carried out in the -mountains. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT WELTZ_ - -Document 343-A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 62, is the only document -submitted in this connection [freezing experiments] and mentioning the -name of Professor Weltz. It is a letter by Field Marshal Milch, dated 20 -May 1942, to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, Chief of the Personal Staff, -Reich Leader SS. In this letter Field Marshal Milch says that the -high-altitude experiments were completed and that there was no real -reason for their continuation. The letter continues: “The carrying out -of experiments concerning the problem of distress at sea, on the other -hand, is important; they were prepared in direct agreement with the -authorities. Oberstabsarzt Weltz is instructed to carry them through and -Stabsarzt Rascher is also made available for them until further notice.” - -Obviously, the prosecution intends to take this letter as basis for the -assertion that Professor Weltz participated in the planning and the -carrying out of the experiments. At the session of 8 May 1947, (_Tr. p. -7237_) the prosecutor referred to this letter and drew the conclusion -therefrom that Field Marshal Milch, pursuant to the information he had -obtained from Professor Hippke on 20 May, thought that Rascher still -belonged to the office of Weltz in Munich and that Professor Weltz was -entrusted with the carrying out of the freezing experiments for this -reason. If and to what extent Field Marshal Milch was informed about the -actual events may be left undecided. It is merely established that -Professor Hippke already knew at that time that Stabsarzt Rascher no -longer belonged to the office of Weltz. This appears with certainty from -NO-296, Prosecution Exhibit 58, which is the letter of the Medical -Inspector of the Luftwaffe of 27 April 1942 to the Chief of the Personal -Staff of the Reich Leader SS, from the reply to Wolff’s application to -Hippke of 16 April 1942, in which Wolff asks for the extension of -Stabsarzt Rascher’s assignment to the DVL (German Research Institute for -Aviation), Dachau Branch. There is, therefore, no doubt that on 20 May -1942, Hippke knew that at that time Rascher no longer belonged to Weltz’ -office. How it happened that the name of Professor Weltz was mentioned -in this document was established by Professor Hippke’s testimony as -witness in the trial against Erhard Milch. (_Weltz 3, Weltz Ex. 7._) -Professor Hippke testified in this connection that in a discussion at -the beginning of June 1942 he was informed by Rascher that the latter -had received orders from the Reich Leader SS (Himmler) to carry out -freezing experiments. A report on this conference is contained in -NO-283, Prosecution Exhibit 82. Supplementing this report, Rascher’s -report on his conference with Professor Hippke, Hippke himself testified -that he was thinking of Professor Weltz because he knew that Professor -Weltz—in his institute in Munich—had been working on problems of -freezing with animal experiments. Later, he had abandoned this plan to -ask Professor Weltz to cooperate in the carrying out of these -experiments because he had become convinced that the theoretical work -was not the point but the practical experience on freezing problems and -that not Professor Weltz but Professor Holzloehner had the greater -practical experience. - -However, it has been established that Professor Weltz never received -such an order and also that he was not otherwise concerned in any way -with the carrying out of the freezing experiments. This is proved by the -testimony of the defendant Weltz in his own case, (_Tr. 7108-09_), and -by the affidavit of Professor Weltz’ co-worker Dr. Wendt. (_Weltz 23, -Weltz Ex. 21._) - -For the rest, Weltz’ name does not appear in any connection in any of -the numerous documents relating to the problem of freezing experiments -submitted by the prosecution. On the contrary, these documents show -clearly who from the Luftwaffe was actually ordered to carry out these -experiments and who carried them out in Dachau. - -The fact that Professor Weltz was not even requested to participate in -the planning of the freezing experiments, appears clearly from Document -NO-283, Prosecution Exhibit 82, already discussed, and above all without -objection. - - * * * * * - -That Professor Weltz refused to participate in the experiments after he -learned about them was firmly established on the other hand by the -evidence submitted by the defense which in turn is supported by the -documents submitted by the prosecution. Document 1610-PS, Prosecution -Exhibit 73, submitted by the prosecution appears to have special weight -as evidence in this connection. It is Rascher’s letter to Himmler of 9 -October 1942. In this letter Rascher asks Himmler to see to it that the -apparatus necessary for chemical analysis be put at his disposal by -laboratories not working to full capacity. He points to the fact that -the Weltz Institute does not make apparatus available to him, as it was -allegedly used there for freezing experiments with shaved cats, and the -institute needed these apparatus for its own use. Moreover, the -affidavit of the witness Dr. v. Werz (_Weltz 4, Weltz Ex. 11_) according -to which Professor Weltz refused to furnish apparatus for freezing -experiments at Dachau, further proves this disapproval on the part of -Professor Weltz of the freezing experiments carried out at Dachau. -Moreover, it appears also from NO-3674, Prosecution Exhibit 549. Here, -an attempt is made to procure the apparatus (colorimeter) which was not -delivered by Weltz from somewhere else. From 1609-PS, Prosecution -Exhibit 92, it becomes apparent to what danger Professor Weltz exposed -himself by his attitude against Rascher. It is a letter of the Reich -Leader SS of 24 October 1942 to Rascher. In it Himmler acknowledges the -receipt of Rascher’s letter, dated 9 October 1942, (_1610-PS, Pros. Ex. -73_) mentioned above in which Rascher complains about Professor Weltz’ -attitude. In reply to this complaint Himmler writes: - - “People who today still disapprove of human experiments and - would rather have German soldiers die of the consequences of - freezing I consider to be guilty of treason and high treason, - and I shall have no compunction to report the names of these - gentlemen to the authorities concerned. You are authorized by me - to inform the offices concerned of this of my opinion.” - -From Sievers’ testimony in direct interrogation it appears, -unequivocally, that this referred to Professor Weltz. In this regard -Sievers declared the following: “I can only say this in respect to Weltz -himself, for Herr Rascher, as I already stated in reply to your -question, mentioned in this connection Weltz as a participant.” - -The defendant Sievers also declared that in view of Rascher’s character, -as known to him, it could be expected that Rascher would make use of the -powers given him with respect to “those guilty of treason and high -treason,” among others also against Professor Weltz. - -In the course of the cross-examination of Weltz the prosecution -intimated in a veiled manner that Professor Weltz might have moved -objects and files or might have put apparatus at the disposal of the -Dachau experiments. - -Since the prosecution could not submit evidence of any weight in this -respect it is unnecessary to go into this. In the cross-examination -itself it became apparent that all the files and apparatus were in -existence at the end of the war and that Weltz himself had made -suggestions to hand over his institute in an orderly manner to the -Americans. (_Tr. pp. 7241-7242._) - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - - Pros. -Doc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page -NO-234 83 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 10 September 219 - 1942, transmitting intermediate report on - freezing experiments (1618-PS). -1618-PS 84 Intermediate report, 10 September 1942, on 220 - intense chilling experiments in Dachau - concentration camp. -1611-PS 85 Letter from Himmler to Rascher and Sievers, 22 221 - September 1942, ordering rewarming in - freezing experiments through physical - warmth. -NO-285 86 Letter from Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 3 221 - October 1942, stating that Sievers would - obtain four gypsy women for rewarming - through body warmth. -1619-PS 87 Teletype from commandant of Dachau 223 - concentration camp to Rudolf Brandt, 7 - October 1942, stating that four women would - be available from Ravensbrueck concentration - camp for Rascher’s experiments. -NO-286 88 Letter from Goering’s office to Himmler, 8 223 - October 1942, with attached invitation to - the conference on “Medical Problems Arising - from Hardships of Sea and Winter.” -1613-PS 90 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 16 October 225 - 1942, transmitting report on cooling - experiments on human beings (NO-428). -NO-428 91 Report of 10 October 1942, on cooling 226 - experiments on human beings. -1609-PS 92 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 24 October 244 - 1942, and note by Rudolf Brandt. -NO-323 94 Memorandum of Rascher on women used for 245 - rewarming warming in freezing experiments, 5 - November, 1942. -NO-320 103 Letter from Sievers to Brandt, 28 January 246 - 1943, and Rascher’s report on his - discussions with Grawitz and Poppendick. -1616-PS 105 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 17 February 249 - 1943, and summary of experiments for - rewarming of chilled human beings by animal - warmth, 12 February 1943. -NO-268 106 Letter from Hippke to Himmler, 19 February 252 - 1943, on freezing experiments in Dachau. -1580-PS 107 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 26 February 253 - 1943, on freezing experiments in the - concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin. -NO-292 111 Letter from Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 4 April 253 - 1943, reporting on dry-freezing experiments - in Dachau. -NO-322 114 Letter from Rascher to Keindl, 28 April 1943, 254 - about previous freezing experiments - conducted at Sachsenhausen. -NO-231 116 Letter from Rascher to Sievers, 17 May 1943, 255 - concerning a conference with Gebhardt on - freezing experiments. -NO-432 119 Letter from Rascher to Neff, 21 October 1943, 258 - concerning dry-freezing experiments. -NO-690 120 List of research projects from the files of 259 - the Reich Research Council. - _Testimony_ - -Extracts from the testimony of Tribunal witness Walter Neff 260 -Extract from the testimony of defendant Handloser 265 -Extract from the testimony of defendant Schroeder 269 -Extracts from the testimony of defendant Sievers 274 - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-234 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 83 - - LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 10 SEPTEMBER 1942, TRANSMITTING - INTERMEDIATE REPORT ON FREEZING EXPERIMENTS (1618-PS) - -Dr. med. Sigmund Rascher Munich, Trogerstr. 56 - at present Berlin, 10 Sep 1942 -My dear Reich Leader, - -May I submit in the enclosure the first intermediary report about the -freezing experiments? - -In the beginning of October, a meeting on the subject of freezing -experiments is to take place. Professor Dr. Holzloehner, participating -in our Dachau experiments on behalf of the Luftwaffe, wants to give on -this occasion an account of the results of our experiments. SS -Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers, who surveyed the experiments in Dachau -last week, believes that if any report was to be made at a meeting, I -should be called upon to submit the report. A discussion with other -experts on freezing experiments would surely be very valuable. I -therefore request your decision. - -1. Can a report be made elsewhere before the oral report has been -submitted to you, my Reich Leader? - -2. Is my participation in the conference on the subject of the freezing -experiments of the Luftwaffe ordered by you, my Reich Leader? - -I will take care that the report is submitted in the manner appropriate -for top secret matter. - - Yours gratefully and respectfully - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] Yours very devotedly, S. RASCHER -1 enclosure - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1618-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 84 - -INTERMEDIATE REPORT, 10 SEPTEMBER 1942, ON INTENSE CHILLING EXPERIMENTS - IN DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP - -S. Rascher -Intermediate report on intense chilling experiments in the Dachau Camp, - started on 15 August 1942 -_Experimental procedure_ - -The experimental subjects (VP) were placed in the water, dressed in -complete flying uniform, winter or summer combination, and with an -aviator’s helmet. A life jacket made of rubber or kapok was to prevent -submerging. The experiments were carried out at water temperatures -varying from 2.5° to 12°. In one experimental series, the occiput (brain -stem) protruded above the water, while in another series of experiments -the occiput (brain stem) and back of the head were submerged in water. - -Electrical measurements gave low temperature readings of 26.4° in the -stomach and 26.5° in the rectum. Fatalities occurred only when the brain -stem and the back of the head were also chilled. Autopsies of such fatal -cases always revealed large amounts of free blood, up to one-half liter, -in the cranial cavity. The heart invariably showed extreme dilation of -the right chamber. As soon as the temperature in these experiments -reached 28°, the experimental subjects died invariably, despite all -attempts at resuscitation. The above discussed autopsy finding -conclusively proved the importance of a warming protective device for -head and occiput when designing the planned protective clothing of the -foam type. - -Other important findings, common in all experiments, should be -mentioned, marked increase of the viscosity of the blood, marked -increase of hemoglobin, an approximate five-fold increase of the -leukocytes, invariable rise of blood sugar to twice its normal value. -Auricular fibrillation made its appearance regularly at 30°. - -During attempts to save severely chilled persons [Unterkuehlte], it was -shown that rapid rewarming was in all cases preferable to slow -rewarming, because after removal from the cold water, the body -temperature continued to sink rapidly. I think that for this reason we -can dispense with the attempt to save intensely chilled subjects by -means of animal heat. - -Rewarming by animal warmth—animal bodies or women’s bodies—would be -too slow. As auxiliary measures for the prevention of intense chilling, -improvements in the clothing of aviators come alone into consideration. -The foam suit with suitable neck protector which is being prepared by -the German Institute for the Textile Research, Munich-Gladbach, deserves -first priority in this connection. The experiments have shown that -pharmaceutical measures are probably unnecessary if the flier is still -alive at the time of rescue. - - [Signed] DR. S. RASCHER -Munich—Dachau, 10 September 1942. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1611-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 85 - -LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER AND SIEVERS, 22 SEPTEMBER 1942, ORDERING - REWARMING IN FREEZING EXPERIMENTS THROUGH PHYSICAL WARMTH - - Secret -Reich Leader SS -Rf/Dr. AR/19/30/42 - Personal Headquarters - Reich Leader SS - 22 September 1942 -1. Dr. Rascher - Munich—Dachau - -I have received the intermediate report on the chilling experiments in -Camp Dachau. - -Despite everything, I would so arrange the experiments that all -possibilities, prompt warming, medicine, body warming, will be executed -in positive experiment orders. - - [Signed] H. HIMMLER -2. SS—Lt. Col. Sievers -Berlin -A carbon copy with the request for acknowledgment. - SS Lt. Col. - 25 Sep 42 - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-285 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 86 - - LETTER FROM RASCHER TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 3 OCTOBER 1942, STATING THAT -SIEVERS WOULD OBTAIN FOUR GYPSY WOMEN FOR REWARMING THROUGH BODY WARMTH - -Dr. med. Sigmund Rascher; Munich, Trogerstr. 56, 3 October 42 - -Most honored Obersturmbannfuehrer! - -First of all I want to thank you very much for “Das glaeserne Meer” -(“The Glass Ocean”). My wife and myself are very happy to possess now a -complete set of these books. I have already read the book with great -interest. - -The Reich Leader SS wants to be informed of the state of the -experiments. I can announce that the experiments have been concluded, -with the exception of those on warming with body heat. The final report -will be ready in about 5 days. Professor Holzloehner, for reasons that I -cannot fathom, does not himself want to make the report to the Reich -Leader Himmler and has asked me to attend to it. This report must be -made before 20 October, because the great Luftwaffe conference on -freezing takes place in Nuernberg on 25 October. The report on the -results of our research _must_ be made there, to assure that they be -used in time for the troops. May I ask you to arrange for a decision -from the Reich Leader regarding the final report to him, and the -submission to him of the relevant material? - -Today I received your letter of 22 September 1942, in which the Reich -Leader orders that the experiments on warming through body heat must -absolutely be conducted. Because of incomplete address it was delayed. -Today I asked Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers to send a telegram to the -camp commander immediately, to the effect that four gypsy women be -procured at once from another camp. Moreover, I asked SS -Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers to take steps to have the low-pressure -chamber made ready for use. - -The report to Field Marshal Milch planned for 11 September could not be -made, as you have discovered, because he was prevented from attending, -and no representative was commissioned to receive it. As the Reich -Leader had not empowered me to report to anyone in the Reich Air -Ministry (RLM), I abstained from making the report, which rather nettled -the gentlemen of the Medical Inspectorate [Sanitaetsinspektion]. I -immediately informed Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers. For the time being -the report is being held as a military secret at the German Aviation -Research Institute (DVL) together with a distribution list prepared by -the Reich Air Ministry. The distribution of the copies, however, has not -yet taken place, because, as I said, the report has not yet been made to -Milch. I assume that you were informed of this whole business long ago. -What shall we do now? - -I wish to enclose a letter of thanks to the Reich Leader from the former -prisoner Neff. At the same time I should like to thank you very much for -your efforts; and let me beg you, should opportunity offer, to convey to -the Reich Leader my most sincere thanks for his granting of this -request. I did not write to the Reich Leader in person, in order not to -make any further demands on his valuable time. - - With best wishes and - Heil Hitler! - Yours most sincerely - [Signed] S. RASCHER. - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1619-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 87 - -TELETYPE FROM COMMANDANT OF DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP TO RUDOLF BRANDT, - 7 OCTOBER 1942, STATING THAT FOUR WOMEN WOULD BE AVAILABLE FROM - RAVENSBRUECK CONCENTRATION CAMP FOR RASCHER’S EXPERIMENTS - - Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) Message Center - - * * * * * - -CONCENTRATION CAMP DACHAU 9793 7 OCTOBER 1942 1630-FR- - -TO SS OBERSTURMBANNFUEHRER DR. BRANDT BERLIN PRINZ ALBRECHT STR. 8. THE -HEADQUARTERS CONCENTRATION CAMP DACHAU REQUESTS CHIEF OF THE AMTSGRUPPE -SS BRIGADEFUEHRER GLUECKS TO HAVE THE FOUR WOMEN ORDERED BY THE REICH -LEADER SS FOR STABSARZT DR. RASCHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPERIMENTS SENT -IMMEDIATELY FROM RAVENSBRUECK TO DACHAU. - -SIGNED WEISS, SS STURMBANNFUEHRER AND COMMANDANT OF THE CAMP. - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-286 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 88 - - LETTER FROM GOERING’S OFFICE TO HIMMLER, 8 OCTOBER 1942, WITH ATTACHED -INVITATION TO THE CONFERENCE ON “MEDICAL PROBLEMS ARISING FROM HARDSHIPS - OF SEA AND WINTER” - -The Reich Air Minister -and Commander in chief - of the Luftwaffe -Az: 55 No. 5 340/secret/42 (L. I. 14, 2IIB) - - Berlin W 8, 8 October 1942 - Leipziger Strasse 7 - By Messenger! -Subject: Research order on Freezing [Abkuehlung]. - -Reference: 1. D. R. d. L. and Ob. d. L. Ch. d. Lw. L. In. 14 Az: 55 - No. 20058/41 (2II B) dated: 24/2/42 - - 2. D. R. d. L. and Ob. d. L. Ch. d. Lw. L. In. 14 Az: 21 - o-r No. 10909/42 (1 II A) dated: 6/8/42 - -To the Reich Leader SS - -The Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe has given an -order for research to the Stabsarzt Professor Dr. Holzloehner, reference -above, dated 24 February 1942, for work on the following problem: - - “The effect of freezing on warm-blooded subjects.” - -At the proposal of Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher appropriate examinations were -made of human beings, and in agreement with the Reich Leader SS suitable -SS facilities were used for the examinations. - -In order to carry out these examinations a research group “Hardships at -Sea” (“Seenot”) was set up, consisting of Professor Dr. Holzloehner as -leader and Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Dr. Finke. - -The leader of this research group reported that the examinations have -been concluded. - -It is intended to dissolve the research group at the latest by 15 -October 1942. - -The research documents and an extensive report will be presented to the -Reich Leader SS by Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher. It is requested that the -originals or copies of the report and of the documents be put at the -disposal of the Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. - -It is intended to make the results, in the form of an extract, -accessible to experts at a conference which will take place in Nuernberg -on 26 and 27 October 1942. The agenda schedule of the conference is -closed. - -The SS Central Office, Medical Department [SS Hauptamt, Sanitaetsamt] -has been invited to this discussion by letter, dated 30 September 1942. - -It is further requested to abstain from forwarding the documents and the -report to other nonmedical offices. - - Draft signed [Im Entwurf gez.] - By order - WULLEN - True Copy - [Signature] ANTHONY -1 enclosure -[Enclosure] -The Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe - -Conference on “Medical Problems Arising from Hardships of Sea and -Winter” on 26 and 27 October 1942 in Nuernberg, Hotel “Der Deutsche -Hof,” 29-35 Frauentorgraben. Chairman of the conference: Stabsarzt -Professor Dr. Anthony, L. In. 14. - -_Tentative schedule_: - -26 October 1942. - - * * * * * - -15.35 o’clock—Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz: - “Warming Up after Freezing to the Danger Point”. -15.55 o’clock—Stabsarzt Professor Holzloehner: - “Prevention and Treatment of Freezing.” -16.40 o’clock—Discussion. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1613-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 90 - -LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 16 OCTOBER 1942, TRANSMITTING REPORT ON - COOLING EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS (NO-428) - -Dr. Sigmund Rascher - Munich 16 October 42 - Troger Str. 56 -Highly esteemed Reich Leader! - -Permit me to submit the attached final report on the super-cooling -experiments performed at Dachau. This report does not contain the course -and results of a series of experiments with drugs as well as experiments -with animal body heat [animalische Waerme] which are now being -conducted. Likewise this report does not contain the microscopic -pathological examinations of the brain tissues of the deceased. I was -surprised at the extraordinary microscopic findings in this field. I -will carry out experiments before the start of the conference in which -the effect of cooling will be discussed and I hope to be able to present -further results by that time. My two coworkers left Dachau about 8 days -ago. - -In the hope that you, highly esteemed Reich Leader, will be able to -spare a quarter of an hour to listen to an oral report, I remain, with -the most obedient regards and - - Heil Hitler! - Yours respectfully. - [Signed] S. RASCHER. - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-428 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 91 - - REPORT OF 10 OCTOBER 1942, ON COOLING EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS - - STABSARZT PROF. DR. E. HOLZLOEHNER - STABSARZT DR. S. RASCHER - STABSARZT DR. E. FINKE - - _I. Problem of the Experiment_ - -Up to the present time there has been no basis for the treatment of -shipwrecked persons who have been exposed for long periods of time to -low-water temperatures. These uncertainties extended to the possible -physical and pharmacological methods of attack. It was not clear, for -example, whether those who had been rescued should be warmed quickly or -slowly. According to the current instructions for treating frozen -people, a slow warming up seemed to be indicated. Certain theoretical -considerations could be adduced for a slow warming. Well-founded -suggestions were missing for a promising medicinal therapy. - -All these uncertainties rested in the last analysis upon the absence of -well-founded concepts concerning the cause of death by cold in human -beings. In the meantime, in order to clarify this question, a series of -animal experiments were started. And, indeed, these officials who wished -to make definite suggestions to the doctors in the sea-rescue service -had to assume a great deal of responsibility if it came to a question of -convincing and consistent results in these animal experiments. At this -particular point it is especially difficult to carry the findings in -animals over into the human field. In the warm-blooded, one finds a -varied degree of development in the heat-regulating mechanism. Besides -this, the processes in the skin of the pelted animals cannot be carried -over to man. - - _II. General Procedure of the Experiment_ - -The effect of _water temperatures_ of 2°, 3°, to 12° C. [34°, 37°, to -54° F.] were investigated. A tank 2×2×2 m. [6-2/3×6-2/3×6-2/3 ft.] -served as an _experimental basin_. The water temperature was attained by -addition of ice, and remained constant during the experiment. The -experimental subjects were generally dressed in _equipment_ such as the -flier wears, consisting of underclothing, uniform, a one piece summer or -winter protective suit, helmet, and aviators fur-lined boots. In -addition they wore a life preserver of rubber or kapok. The effect of -_additional protective clothing_ against water-cold was tested in a -special series of experiments, and in another series the _cooling of the -unclothed person_ was studied. - -The _bodily warmth_ was measured _thermoelectrically_. Following -preliminary experiments in which gastric temperatures were measured by a -thermic sound, we adopted the procedure of continuously registering -_rectally_ the body temperature [Kerntemperatur]. Parallel with this, -the recording of the _skin temperature_ was undertaken. The point of -measurement was the skin of the back at the level of the fifth thoracic -certebral process. The thermoelectrical measurements were controlled -before, during, and after the experiments by thermometric tests of the -cheek and rectal temperature. - -In severe cooling, _checking of the pulse_ is difficult. The pulse -becomes weaker, the musculature become stiff, and shivering sets in. -Auscultation during the experiment by means of a tube stethoscope -fastened over the tip of the heart proved effective. The tubes were led -out of the uniform and made possible the continuous _listening to the -heart during the stay in the water_. - -_Electrocardiographic controls_ were not possible in the water. After -removal from the water they were possible only in those cases in which, -a too severe muscle shivering did not disturb the electrocardiograph -records. - -The following _chemical studies_ were carried out: following up of the -_blood sugar picture_ (continuous); the _sodium chloride picture_ in the -serum; the _nonprotein nitrogen_ (_Rest-N_); the _alkali reserve_; the -alkali reserve of the venous and arterial blood and _sedimentation rate_ -(before and after the experiment). Besides this the general _blood -condition_ and _viscosity_ were followed during the experiment, and -before and after the experiment the _resistance_ of the red blood cells -and the protein content of the blood plasma (this refractometrically) -were measured. - -The following _urinalyses_ were made regularly: _sediment_, _albumen_, -_sugar_, _sodium chloride_, _acetone_, _acetic acid_, as well as a -qualitative _albumen_ determination. - -In part of the experiment lumbar and suboccipital punctures were made as -well as corresponding spinal fluid studies. - -Among _physical_ and _therapeutic measures_ the following were tested: - - _a._ Rapid warming by means of a _hot_ bath. - - _b._ Warming by means of a _light cradle_. - - _c._ Warming in a heated _sleeping bag_. - - _d._ Vigorous _massage_ of the whole body. - - _e._ _Wrapping in covers._ - - _f._ _Diathermy of the heart._ - -In addition the following drugs were given: _Strophanthin_ i. v.; -_Cardiaz_ 1 i. v. and i. c.; _Lobelin and Coramin_ i. v. and i. c. In -other experiments alcohol or grape sugar was given. - -A part of the experiments was begun under _narcosis_ (8 cc. _Evipan_ i. -v.). - - _III. The Clinical Picture of Cooling_ - -The clinical picture as well as the behavior of the body temperature -showed certain regularities in the general course; the time of -appearance of certain phenomena was, however, subject to very great -_individual variations_. As one might expect, a _good general physical -condition_ delayed the cooling and the concomitant phenomena. Further -differences were conditioned by the _position of the subject in the -water_ and the _manner of clothing_. Furthermore, differences showed up -between experiments in which the subject lay horizontally in the water -so that the nape of the neck and the back of the head were splashed with -water, and others in which neck and head protruded freely out of the -water. - -Peculiarly, the _actual water temperatures_ between 2° C. and 12° C. -[35° and 54° F.] had no demonstrable effect upon the rate of the -cooling. Naturally such an effect must exist. But since besides the -already mentioned individual differences and those due to experimental -conditions, the various subjects cooled on different days at different -rates of speed, the effect of the actual water temperatures between 2° -and 12° disappears behind such variations. - -If the experimental subject was placed in the water under narcosis, one -observed a certain arousing effect. The subject began to groan and made -some defensive movements. In a few cases a state of excitation -developed. This was especially severe in the cooling of head and neck. -But never was a complete cessation of the narcosis observed. The -defensive movements ceased after about 5 minutes. There followed a -progressive rigor, which developed especially strongly in the arm -musculature; the arms were strongly flexed and pressed to the body. The -rigor increased with the continuation of the cooling, now and then -interrupted by tonic-clonic twitchings. With still more marked sinking -of the body temperature it suddenly ceased. These cases ended fatally, -without any successful results from resuscitation efforts. - -In the course of the narcosis experiments the evipan effects in a few -cases went directly over into a cold narcosis; in other cases one could -determine a transitory return of consciousness, immediately following -the awakening effect already described; at any rate, the experimental -subjects were dizzy. Cold pain was not expressed. - -Experiments without narcosis showed no essential differences in the -course of cooling. Upon entry into the water a severe cold shuddering -appeared. The cooling of the neck and back of the head was felt as -especially painful, but already after 5 to 10 minutes a significant -weakening of the pain sensation was observable. Rigor developed after -this time in the same manner as under narcosis, likewise the -tonic-clonic twitchings. At this point speech became difficult because -the rigor also affected the speech musculature. - -Simultaneously with the rigor a severe _difficulty in breathing_ set in -with or without narcosis. It was reported that, so to speak, an iron -ring was placed about the chest. Objectively, already at the beginning -of this breathing difficulty, a marked _dilatation of the nostrils_ -occurred. The _expiration was prolonged and visibly difficult_. This -difficulty passed over into a rattling and snoring breathing. However, -the breathing at this point was not especially deep as in Kussmaul’s -breathing nor were any Cheyne-Stokes breathing or Biot’s breathing to be -observed. Not in all subjects, but in a great number, a simultaneous -hindering during this breathing through very profuse _secretion of -mucous_ could be established. Under these conditions sometimes a white, -_fine-bubbled foam_ appeared at the mouth which reminded one of an -incipient _lung oedema_, though it was not possible to determine this -symptom with certainty by clinical auscultation; only a sharpened -unclean breath sound was audible. This foam might occur early, that is, -at rectal temperatures of 32° C. to 35° C.; [90°-95° F.]. No special -significance was to be attributed to this regarding the outcome of the -experiment which is the opposite of the described relaxation of rigor. -The _rate of breathing increased_ at the beginning of the experiment, -but after about 20 minutes it decreased to something like 24 per minute -with slight variations. - -In general a definite _dulling of consciousness_ occurred at the -dropping of the body temperature of 31° C. [88° F.] rectal temperature. -Next, the subjects still responded to speech but finally answered very -sleepily. The _pupils_ dilated markedly. The contraction under light -became increasingly weaker. The gaze was directed overhead with a -compulsive fixation. After withdrawal from the water _an increase in the -reflexes_ was evident in spite of the rigor, and regularly a very marked -drawing up of the testicles occurred which practically disappeared into -the abdomen. Early in the experiment the _face_ was pale. After 40 to 50 -minutes _cyanosis_ appeared. With this the face appeared redder, the -mucous membrane bluish-red. The skin veins were not maximally collapsed -and were virtually always penetrable. - -The _heart activity_ showed a constant change independent of all other -individual variations, which was noticeable in all subjects. Upon -introduction into the water with narcotized subjects as well as -nonnarcotized subjects, the heart rate went suddenly to about 120 per -minute. At a rectal body temperature of about 34° C. [93° F.] it then -began to become increasingly slower and to sink continuously to about 50 -per minute. - -The bradycardia at a body temperature of about 29° to 30° C. [84° to 86° -F.] changed suddenly to an _arrythmia perpetua_ or, as the case may be, -to a _total irregularity_ and this began with a slow form of about 50 -beats per minute; this slow form of irregularity could be transformed -into a faster one. The transformation to the faster form was not an -unfavorable sign regarding life. - -When an electrocardiographic control after the experiment was possible, -it regularly showed a Vorhof flutter. Let it be anticipated _that this -irregularity could continue to exist after the cessation of the cooling -and a recovery of the body temperature to 33° or 34° C. [91° or 93° F.] -1½ to 2 hours after removal from the water_, but then customarily -changed of itself and without therapeutic aids into a coordinated heart -activity. In the same way let it be anticipated that in all cases with a -lethal termination, a sudden cessation of the heartbeat ensued upon an -irregularity of the slow type. - -A check of the _blood pressure_ was attempted, but was in no case -satisfactory since an exact measurement was not possible in the decisive -stage of the experiment because of the severe rigor and muscle -fibrillation. - -Reference has already been made to _individual differences in the -behavior of the rectal temperatures_. Figure 4 gives an example which -includes four experiments, in which four different experimental subjects -were cooled at identical water temperatures and with identical clothing. -It was shown that in water at 4.5° C. [40° F.] temperature the time -required for reaching a rectal temperature of about 29.5° C. [85° F.] -varies between 70 and 90 minutes. But nevertheless the diagram shows -that in spite of these individual differences, it is observable that the -progress of the rectal temperature proceeds according to rule. The body -temperature begins to sink rapidly from about 35° C. [95°-97° F.]. - -_It is of very great practical significance at this point that the body -temperature continues to sink virtually lineally for a considerable time -after removal from the water._ This continued drop can last 20 minutes -or more. During this drop an after-drop of 4° C. [7° F.] could be -observed, and indeed not only at temperatures under 30° C. [86° F.]. In -one case it was observed that an interruption of the experiment at 35° -C. [95° F.] after a further lapse of 20 minutes the rectal temperature -had fallen 4° to 5° C. [8° F.] more. We will later discuss the -“arresting” of this after-drop by physical measures. - -In our experimental series, the lowest rectal temperatures which could -be survived varied individually just as did the progress of the -temperature drop. In general (in six cases) death occurred with a drop -in temperature to values between 24.2° and 25.7° C. [75.6° and 77.6° -F.]. In one case, however, a drop to 25.2° C. was survived. This -experiment fell outside the typical picture insofar as after 90 minutes -at 26.6° C. [79.9° F.] a virtually stationary condition of the rectal -temperature had become established for 85 minutes. We will come back -again to this special experiment. - -The _skin temperature_ sinks or drops much more rapidly than the rectal -temperature. Within a minute there occurs a thorough saturation of the -articles of clothing. Correspondingly the skin temperature falls already -within 5 minutes to values between 24° and 19° C. [75° and 66° F.]. -After 10 minutes it may have already dropped to 12° C. [54° F.]. Within -10 to 20 minutes more after the beginning of the experiment the -steepness of the drop changes considerably. The curve of the skin -temperature runs for some time, that is, for 15 to 30 minutes virtually -horizontal. After this time there follows a further but now slower drop -to the lowest figures, which may lie below 15° C. [59° F.] at the close -of the experiment. - -Parallel experiments which compare the _course of the rectal -temperatures_ and the cooling of the body with and _without submersion -of neck and back of head_ showed great difference in temperature drop. -The curves pertain to the same experimental subject. The one with the -deep fall to 26° C. [79° F.] in 70 minutes was obtained with a water -temperature of 12° C. [54° F.] the other with a drop to 32.5° C. [90.4° -F.] in the same time resulted from a water temperature of 5.5° C. [41.9° -F.]. The very marked difference cannot be explained by a variation in -resistance of the particular person, but is to be attributed to the -position of the subject in the water and his head covering. In the -experiment with the water at 12° C. [54° F.] the subject, in a kapok -life preserver, lay flat in the water so that his neck and the back of -his head were well submerged; beyond this he did not wear a flier’s -helmet. In the other experiment with water at 5.5° C. [41.9° F.] the -head was covered with an aviator’s summer helmet without headphones. The -subject wore a rubber life preserver open at the back; with this, the -head is somewhat out of the water. - -In order to follow up the effect of _isolated cooling of the neck and -the back of the head_ on consciousness, body temperature, and -circulation, this was undertaken in three special experiments. The -experimental subject lay horizontal; the back of the head and the neck -were dipped into a receptacle through which water of corresponding -temperature was continuously run. In an experiment of 3 hours duration -there occurred small temperature drops of not more than 0.8° C. [1.4° -F.]. The water temperature was 1° to 2° C. [34° to 35° F.]. In one case -after 50 minutes a marked sleepiness occurred which changed over into a -deep narcosis. The heart activity was variable, and obvious bradycardia -could not be observed. Irregularity never developed. Changes were not -seen in the electrocardiograph. On the other hand in all three subjects -the spinal fluid pressure was markedly increased after the ending of the -experiment to maximal values of 300 mm. After the experiment, ataxia and -definite Romberg phenomena were observed, as well as exaggeration of the -normal reflexes; pathological reflexes were absent. - - _IV. Blood, Spinal Fluid, and Urine During Freezing_ - -The _differential blood smears_ showed no special features during -cooling. On the other hand the number of white and red blood corpuscles -shows a regular change. The _number of leukocytes_ rapidly increases, -roughly with the beginning of the steeper temperature drop at about 35° -C. [95° F.] rectal temperature to values of from 25,000 to 27,000 per -cu. mm. After one hour a maximum may be reached and a falling-off begins -in the number of leukocytes, while the body temperature falls still -further. The number of red corpuscles undergoes an increase, though to a -relatively small degree, which in its course resembles the change in the -_number of leukocytes_. We saw increases up to 20 percent. This increase -is interrupted even earlier than the increase in the number of -leukocytes, so that both curves give no reflection of the temperature -curve. The increase of the erythrocytes corresponded to the increase of -the hemoglobin of from 10 to 20 percent. A reduction of the fragility of -the red corpuscles could not be demonstrated with certainty, on the -other hand, although in three experiments a definite hemolysis occurred. - -The viscosity regularly increases with the beginning of the fall in -temperature. The rise can reach values up to 7.8. This rise occurs very -early, indeed, already at body temperatures of 35° C. [95° F.]. After -that the values remain relatively constant with further temperature -falls. The _albumen content of the plasma_ was likewise increased after -the experiment, on the average by 1 percent of the absolute value. Since -these measurements could not be made as often as those of viscosity for -technical reasons, the connection with the progress of the viscosity -remained unclear. Such a connection could not be recognized from the -absolute values obtained. - -With the acceleration of the temperature drop, there always occurs a -more marked increase of the blood sugar to maximal values which may -attain an average _increase of 80 percent_ and in a few cases may reach -an _increase of over 100 percent_. According to that, the maximal value -of about 27.5° C. [81.5° F.] is reached and is maintained for some time. -It is to be observed that _as long as the temperature drop continues, in -no experiment was it possible to observe a decrease in these high blood -sugar values_. It is usually to be observed that a relatively rapid drop -of the blood sugar values sets in when, after removal from the water, -the temperature drop ceases and goes over into a temperature rise. We -consider these findings to be of theoretical significance. During the -isolated cooling of the neck and back of the head which was described in -section III the blood sugar remained constant. - -In striking contrast to the increase of the blood sugar, there was never -established a _corresponding glycosuria_ in the urine collected -immediately after the experiment or withdrawn through a catheter, -although considerable quantities of urine averaging 500 cc. were found -in the bladder; in only two cases could traces of sugar (0.5 percent) be -demonstrated. This paradoxical behavior can, perhaps, be explained in -this manner: during the time of great blood sugar increase, a blocking -of the kidneys had occurred, and that the associated urine quantities -were formed before or after this blocking under reflex polyuria. Acetone -and acetic acid, likewise, could not be demonstrated in the urine. - -The _alkali reserve_ in the arterial and venous blood was regularly very -much reduced at the end of the experiments. Experiments concerning -_oxygen saturation_ could not be carried out. According to the color of -the venous blood withdrawn from the arm veins, the saturation of this -blood must have been very greatly reduced; the blood was virtually black -as it came into the syringe. Noteworthy in this connection are the -autopsy findings which were undertaken directly after death. In these, -the blood in the right heart appeared very dark, and in the left heart -very bright red. According to this, one must calculate upon an _increase -in the saturation differential between the arteries and veins_. - -_Sodium chloride_ and _nonprotein nitrogen_ in the blood were not clear -in the blood at the end of the experiments or increased within the limit -of error. _Sodium chloride in the urine_ was generally less, -corresponding to a reduction of the specific gravity. On the other hand -at the end of the experiments _traces of albumin_ could regularly be -demonstrated _in the urine_ and moderately increased leukocytes, -occasional erythrocytes, and epithelial cells in the sediments. In -particular cases, _albumin casts_ were also observed. The reaction of -the urine remained identical before and after the experiments virtually -without exception. The studies of the bile yielded no results. - -_Lumbar and suboccipital_ punctures immediately after the experiments -showed a considerable _increase in fluid pressure_. On the average it -amounted to between 50 and 60 mm. In one case, an _increase to 420 mm._ -was seen. The protein values were always normal. Cell increases did not -appear, likewise no abnormal deviation of the colloidal gold curve was -observed. The meaning of these findings for therapy is still to be -discussed later. - - _V. Recovery After Cooling and Its Dependence Upon Physiotherapeutic - Measures_ - -The important fact has already been referred to that after rescue from -the cold water, the body temperature sinks further and so a further -temperature reduction of 4° C. [7° F.] may take place. As was likewise -emphasized, this may occur as a postphenomenon not only when low -temperatures have been obtained already during the experiments, but it -can be noted also at final temperatures of 35° C. [95° F.]. A dependence -of this after-drop on the duration of the experiment could not be -established; as a result it is difficult to calculate in advance. This -fact becomes of great importance for practical measures; on the other -hand it makes it difficult to gain an insight into the manner in which -various physiotherapeutic measures affect the arresting of this -after-drop and the recovery of the body temperature. Only because of the -large number of the experiments was it possible to obtain well-founded -concepts of this. - -The _flattest rise of the body temperature_ was to be observed when the -subject was merely dried off, wrapped in warm cover, and left to himself -after removal from the water. The recovery is greatly accelerated if the -subject is placed in a hot bath as soon as possible after the removal of -the wet articles of clothing. Warming under a light cradle assisted the -temperature rise. Vigorous massage had a favorable effect, however, only -if it was preceded by treatment in a hot bath or light cradle. _In no -case was it established that there was any indication of bad effects -from the hot water or the light cradle, or that the subject had been -harmed in any way._ On the other hand, it was observed in three cases -that a hot bath had doubtless a life saving effect. In two of these -cases there had been complete cessation of heart and breathing action, -and in one case the heart had stopped for several seconds after a -markedly slackened irregularity before the subject was placed into water -of not more than 50° C. [122° F.]. _As a result of this we can discard -all traditional objections to a sudden rewarming._ - -The favorable effect of a hot bath is still clearer in the observation -of the general condition of the subject than in the temperature curves, -although it cannot be presented objectively. The breathing very often -becomes “freer” immediately upon introduction into the hot water. The -hot water releases a strong stimulus; the unconscious subject often -reacts with an outcry. Soon thereafter there occurs a distinct lessening -of the severe rigor. The return of consciousness occurs sooner, and -indeed at temperatures at which it did not usually happen under other -methods of treatment. - -In the first experiments with hot water treatment, this was continued -only for 10 minutes; after that the subjects were removed and vigorously -massaged. Under these circumstances it could be established that the -temperature rise continued during the rubbing, indeed in one experiment -the rise became steeper. As already indicated, this favorable effect of -dry rubbing was not so pronounced without preliminary treatment by heat. -It is important, too, that the rubbing be done when the severe spasm of -the peripheral vessels has already passed. - -_In view of this, the hot hath is the best method of treatment of the -severely cooled person._ However, in the practice of sea rescue service -it will not be possible to carry out this method, since the necessary -means are not available in aircraft and boats. Under these circumstances -we must consider next only the rapid rewarming with light cradle or -electrically _heated sleeping bag_. Therefore a sleeping bag as now used -in the sea rescue service was also tested. It was evident that the -temperatures which can be developed by this means are not sufficient for -heat therapy. With those it was possible to reach a temperature of only -32° C. [90° F.] over the skin, with the heat turned on fully. Besides -this, the wall of the foot-section of the sleeping bag is only partly -heated; on the outer sides it remains completely cold. As long as no -improvement and strengthening of the heating equipment of the sack is -carried out, the sleeping bag can be considered only as a substitute for -wrapping in warm covers. - -The warming by means of the _light cradle_ is more uneven than with a -hot bath. With warming by light one might expect severe local vessel -expansion with _danger of collapse_. Actually the subjects often -complained of dizziness and nausea after reaching consciousness if the -treatment lasted longer than 15 minutes. Occasionally vomiting occurred. -In these cases it is indicated to switch off the light cradle and to -pack the subject with covers. Apart from this it must be remembered that -during unconsciousness the subject should be protected against direct -contact with the lamps by means of covers, otherwise burns could occur -during clonic-tonic convulsions. - -This suggests that “_short waves_” be employed to supply heat, since it -was shown in animal experimentation that by this means it is possible to -bring about a thorough warming of the whole animal, which leads to a -recovery of the animal with puzzling rapidity. We did not have the -proper equipment for a thorough warming of a human being by this means. -For this reason the _short wave therapy of the heart_ was tried. This -did not have any demonstrable effect. Above all, it is necessary to -advise against a practical application of this method, since there -exists the danger of prolonged burning even in full consciousness, as -the result of cold anaesthesia, even if the treating physician carefully -tries to avoid this. - -The severe difficulty in breathing as well as the formation of foam -before the mouth, which reminded one of incipient lung oedema, seemed to -indicate oxygen therapy. Therefore this therapy was tried in four -experiments. It showed no effect on either the breathing or the heart -action. It has been pointed out that the arterial blood appears -especially light red. - - _VI. Death After Cooling in Water_ - _Practical and Theoretical Considerations_ - -Reports to the effect that those who have been rescued at sea are -imperilled for a considerable time after rescue has aroused special -attention. It has been reported especially that sudden cases of death -occurred as much as 20 minutes to 90 minutes after rescue, and that in -mass catastrophes these sudden deaths could amount to mass-dying (rescue -collapse). These observations have set off far-reaching discussions. -Bleeding in the rewarming periphery, break-downs of neural and humoral -correlations and similar ideas have been brought up. - -In contrast to this our experiments give a relatively simple explanation -of cold-death under these conditions. With the exception of a single -case, a total irregularity of the heart chamber could be definitely -demonstrated in all cases of cooling under 30° C. [86° F.], (50 -experiments), when the rectal temperature reached 29° C. [84° F.] and -usually already at a cooling of 31° C. [88° F.]. The exception was an -experiment on an intoxicated subject, which is to be gone into more -fully below (_see sec. VII_). - -_Furthermore heart-death was established clinically in all cases of -death observed by us._ In two cases breathing ceased simultaneously with -the heart activity. These were cases in which it was specially noted -that the neck and the back of the head lay deep in the water. In all -remaining cases breathing outlasted the clinical chamber cessation by as -much as 20 minutes. In part this was “normal, much decelerated -breathing,” in part an angonal form of gasping. As already referred to, -an auricular flutter could be demonstrated cardiographically during the -irregularity. - -In cases in which a special _cooling of neck and back of head_ had -existed before death, the _autopsy_ showed _a marked brain oedema_, a -tight filling of the general brain cavity [Hirngefaesse] blood in the -spinal fluid as well as blood in the Michaelisrhomboid. - -The heart findings warrant our taking a certain attitude toward _the -question of rescue collapse_. Death occurred relatively quickly after -removal from the water, which may be compared with rescue. The longest -interval involved was 14 minutes. It is to be noted, however, in the -first place, that almost certainly a much larger number of deaths would -have been observed if an active heat therapy had not almost regularly -been coupled directly with the completion of the experiment; in the -second place, that in such cases there would have been very much longer -intervals. We have already called attention repeatedly to the -after-cooling following the experiment. In every case where this had -proceeded to a certain point, countermeasures were taken, since the -experiments were never planned to end in death. One may well imagine, -however, that in mass catastrophes, in which almost exclusively rescue -collapse has heretofore been described, the therapeutic measures were -confined to an undressing and drying off of the rescued together with a -subsequent wrapping in covers. Under these conditions after-drops of -great magnitude and long duration were to be expected. In the course of -this delayed fall in temperature, a heart-death might occur as in our -experiments. - -_We should like to emphasize that the irregularity per se is not to be -regarded in our experiments as a symptom of danger to life any more than -in the clinic, but rather as a sign of direct heart damage, which -increases continuously with further falling off of temperature, until -finally the heart fails. If the temperature drop is arrested, the slow -form of irregularity passes over into a rapid form._ This transition is -a favorable sign for survival; for this irregularity virtually always -passes over of itself after a time averaging 90 minutes into normal -heart activity. It continues therefore for a long time after the body -temperature has already risen markedly. A danger to the circulatory -system could not be demonstrated at this stage. In three cases the -return of the heart action to normal occurred in spite of simultaneous -energetic physical work. - -With the demonstration that cold-death of man is primarily a -heart-death, the essential points for therapy are also cleared up. The -_cause of the severe heart_ damage is another question. Since our -studies were primarily aimed at the development of practical methods of -treatment, we will not go very far into the theoretical concepts which -may be developed in this connection. Still, several hints may be drawn -from the blood studies: - -1. The great increase of the _viscosity_ causes an _increased loading_ -upon the heart. - -2. The _choking of peripheral vessel_ areas by the severe vessel -contraction leads to an over-filling of the central areas. This appears -not only from our autopsies. In all available records of autopsies which -pertain to cases of death from cold in the water after sea disaster, we -find uniformly a severe over-filling of the right heart. - -3. It is to be calculated that, under the effect of the low blood -temperature, the _heart_ itself becomes severely _hypodynamic_. It has -been proved long ago in animal experimentation that a Vorhof flutter can -be developed by the overloading and cooling of the isolated heart. - -Besides a physical damaging of the heart musculature by the cold, we -must also keep in mind the _damaging by pathological products of -metabolism_. Next, the sharp increase in blood sugar may be connected -with the increased outpouring of adrenalin. The constancy of this -increase of blood sugar during the temperature drop is, however, -remarkable. One may well assume that this flow of adrenalin exhausts -itself with the continuance of the temperature drop. With this there -would have to be a rapid decrease in the blood sugar if the oxidation -processes were to continue undisturbed. The decrease in the alkali -reserve or the development of an acidosis argues strongly for an injury. - -Animal experiments, with general cooling, give grounds for believing -that the intermediary metabolism is disturbed during drops in -temperature; but this change is also discussed in connection with local -freezing of the human being and has been proved to a certain extent. -Furthermore, not only this disturbance shows a transition between -general and local damage by cold. In both cases there occurs an increase -in viscosity, which points to a change in the capillary walls and -indicates the conclusion that there is a change in the permeability of -those walls for protein and water. - -The heart-death remains prominent, the regular increase of spinal fluid -pressure with severe cooling of the neck and back of the head leaves it -unsettled whether, in addition, this has pathognomonic significance for -the outcome. With a fluid pressure of 420 mm. it must in fact be assumed -that this participates in the development of bradycardia. - -The detection of an increase in fluid pressure is also not without -significance for therapy. One may think of a lumbar or suboccipital -puncture as a measure to be prescribed. After a lumbar puncture there -occurs a transformation of the slow form of arrhythmia into the rapid -form. It must remain undecided whether such measures, which delay a -rapid, active rewarming, are to be recommended for practical application -in the sea-rescue service. - -The idea that cold-death in water depends upon failure of the heart, -accompanied or unaccompanied by breathing, is subject to limitation. One -experiment among fifty-seven was typical. This involved survival of a -cooling to 25.2° C. [77.4° F.] during a stay of 3 hours in water of 5.5° -C. [41.4° F.]. The rectal temperature under these conditions remained -constant within slight variations between 27° and 25° C. [81° and 77° -F.] for the last hour and a half. Likewise, quite irregularly, no -increase in blood sugar occurred. But most striking was the fact that -until the end of the experiment and after its termination consciousness -was undisturbed. The course of the experiment reminded one of the -behavior of certain experimental animals which can withstand extremely -low body temperatures for long periods of time. Lower, warm-blooded -animals (for example, rats) can endure rectal temperatures of 20° C. -[68° F.] for several hours. It is conceivable that this atypical -experiment, had it been continued, would have shown also an atypical -cause of death. Against this we have the fact that an irregularity had -already set in but not before a temperature of 30.1° C. [86.2° F.] had -been reached. - -Also, aside from the fluid pressure increase, the part which the -_central nervous system_ plays in the outcome of the experiment seems to -us to be _secondary_. The experiments with simultaneous cooling of the -neck of course showed how the cooling of the neck and back of the head -speeds up the lowering of temperature. This is to be explained by the -fact that the counter-controls which are relayed from the temperature -center to the periphery, either cannot exist further because of -hypofunction of the centers (effect of oedema and cooling), or are no -longer transmitted because of cold-blocking of the pathways. But -likewise central counter-controls for the areas of the peripheral -capillaries may fall; thus delaying the overloading of the heart by -extended periphera vasco friction. - - _VII. The Influence of Pharmacology and the Question of Alcohol_ - -Now experiments by _Jarisch_ have shown that heart drugs like -_strophanthin_ and stimulants like _cardiazol_ and _coramine_ in -therapeutic doses may react _toxically_ upon cooled animals. These -findings are a warning to be most careful in the medicinal treatment of -severely cooled persons, though strophanthin and cardiazol have -heretofore been expressly recommended in such cases. - -In experiments with fatal outcome, the stopping of the heart occurred -either in the water or after an interval of not more than 14 minutes -after removal from the water. With such a rapid course of events it is -unlikely that one can favorably influence the heart action by -intravenous injections of strophanthin, especially because the -circulation is at a very low ebb before the heart-death. For this -reason, in a case whose condition was already very dangerous, -_strophanthin was given intracardially_ in a dose of 0.25 mg. Thereupon -the heart condition grew still worse and after 5 minutes the heart -stopped. One had the impression that the heart action was made worse by -the intracardial injection of strophanthin. This is, however, the only -case which left the possibility of damage by strophanthin in doubt. No -such damage could ever be established in the intravenous injection of -strophanthin. On the other hand no therapeutic effect, even with maximal -doses of 0.5 mg., could be detected. Figure 11 [not reproduced], last -section, shows the total duration in 10 cases of the irregularity -observed without strophanthin dosage. This varies between 25 and 200 -minutes. On the other hand in Figure 13 in the last section, first five -cross-rows there are corresponding time values of 175 to 360 minutes. At -various experimental time points during these experiments 0.25 to 0.5 of -strophanthin were given. Accordingly, a shortening of the duration of -the irregularity cannot be established. Furthermore no improvement of -the pulse or general condition was ever noted. Obviously these -experiments are too few to rule out a possible favorable effect in all -cases. Several hundred experiments would be necessary to obtain -statistically reliable data on this point. And so, since contrary to -animal experimentation, we could not unquestionably establish damage -following intravenous strophanthin dosage, we may leave it to the -treating physician whether or not he may still want to make an -_experiment with strophanthin_. To be sure, such an employment of it -must be advised against in case of a very much decelerated form of -irregularity. This will be observed when there is the greatest danger; -under such circumstances time should never be lost by experimenting with -drugs, but every effort should be made in the direction of intensive -heat therapy. - -Also in the experiments with _cardiazol_, _coramin_ and _lobeline_ we -restricted ourselves primarily to determining whether injurious effects -occurred in the case of relatively large doses. Four cc. of 10 percent -coramin as well as 2 cc. of 1 percent lobeline were injected -intravenously at various stages of recovery without any marked objective -and subjective deterioration of the state of the heart, the breathing, -and the general condition. But just as with strophanthin, it is -impossible to rule out a possible therapeutically favorable effect -because of the small number of experiments. We never observed such an -effect. Especially the marked deepening of breathing and of the -irritability of the trigeminal nerve which usually sets in very suddenly -after coramin (for example, sneezing immediately after the injection) -were always missing. Contrary to strophanthin, in the case of which we -cannot advise against experimentation by intravenous injection under -certain conditions, we believe on theoretical grounds that such -experiments with _peripheral circulatory drugs_ which may heighten the -vessel tonus are not indicated because of the following considerations: -The damage to the heart is to be attributed, among other things, to an -overloading, which is caused by a blocking of enlarged vessel areas, -aside from an increase in viscosity. If the vessel tonus is further -increased in the areas which have remained unimpeded, the conditions for -the heart are thereby made worse. - -The sceptical attitude toward the effect of drugs is strengthened above -all by the observation that in the majority of the experiments in which -no drugs were given, even the most severe disturbances of the peripheral -circulation were reduced remarkably rapidly under intensive heat -treatment. In this connection it must be emphasized that besides the -recovery of body temperature through heat therapy an unloading of the -heart takes place because the blocked areas open up. Contrary to earlier -concepts, according to which there was danger of hemorrhage into the -periphery during rapid rewarming, and according to which one sought to -avoid this hemorrhage by wrapping up the extremities as well as by very -slow warming, the “venalous bleeding into the periphery” may be -life-saving under some circumstances. An exception, namely, loval -pyperacmia after considerable rise in temperature and corresponding -reestablishment of circulation has already been described in the -reference to the danger in some cases of very prolonged treatment in the -light cradle. - -The familiar increase of peripheral blood volume as a result of alcohol -leads one to expect that very intoxicated persons cool more rapidly. -Figure 14[28] shows an experiment from which we may conclude that -_actually acceleration of the cooling_ does set in after partaking -_liberally of alcohol before the experiment_. It is very remarkable that -in such an experiment, _the only exception among all cooling -experiments_, irregularity was absent in a cooling to 28.1° C. [82.6° -F.]. Even if it was not possible to reproduce this apparent protection -against irregularity caused by partaking of alcohol in control -experiments on other subjects, there remains the possibility that the -distending of the peripheral vessels delays the overloading of the -heart, just as on the other hand it increases the speed of cooling. - -Our observations contradict the old seafaring custom of pouring -_alcohol_ into a person _already cooled_, since, according to these -observations the temperature tends, even in slight degrees of cooling, -to sink further for a long time after rescue. As long as there is no -active supply of heat from outside, the disadvantage of an increased -heat loss will reduce the utility of stopping the peripheral vessel -blockage. Also in _later stages_ of recovery one must obviously be very -careful in giving alcohol; above all, this warning is emphasized by the -possibility that one must reckon with a total irregularity after more -than an hour, which may go unnoticed by the inexperienced experimenter. - - * * * * * - - _VIII. Preventive Measures_ - - * * * * * - - _IX. Concerning Life Jackets_ [_Schwimmwesten_] - - * * * * * - - _X. Summary_ - -1. The curve of rectal temperature of human beings chilled in water of -2° C. [35.6° F.] to 12° C. [53.6° F.] shows a gradual drop to about 35° -C. [95° F.], after which the drop becomes rapid. Death may occur at -rectal temperatures below 30° C. [86° F.]. - -2. Death results from heart failure. The direct damage to the heart -becomes evident from the total irregularity observed in all cases, -setting in at approximately 30° C. [86° F.]. This cardiac damage is due -to overloading of the heart, caused by the marked and regular increase -in the viscosity of the blood, as well as by the marked throttling of -large peripheral vascular areas; besides, a direct injury to the heart -by the cold is also probable. - -3. If the neck is also chilled, the lowering of the temperature is more -rapid. This is due to interference with the temperature-regulating and -vascular centers; cerebral oedema also makes its appearance. - -4. The blood sugar rises as the temperature falls, and the blood sugar -does not drop again as long as the body temperature continues to fall. -This fact suggests an intermediary disturbance of metabolism. - -5. Respiration of the chilled subject is rendered difficult due to the -rigor of the respiratory musculature. - -6. After removal from the cold water, the body temperature may continue -to fall for 15 minutes or longer. This may be an explanation of deaths -which occur after successful rescue from the sea. - -7. Intensive rewarming never injures the severely chilled person. - -8. Strophanthin treatment was not observed to have been successful. The -question of the use of strophanthin remains open, however. Remedies -which influence the peripheral circulation are definitely not advisable. - -9. The most effective therapeutic measure is rapid and intensive heat -treatment, best applied by immersion in a hot bath. - -10. By means of special protective clothing, the survival time after -immersion in cold water could be extended to double the survival time of -subjects who were immersed without protective clothing. - -11. Certain proposals for improvement of life jackets are being made. - -Concluded on 10 October 1942. - - [Signed] Prof. DR. HOLZLOEHNER - DR. RASCHER - DR. FINKE - - * * * * * - - _Behavior of the heart action under the influence of medication_ - - │ │Occurance of │ Therapy │Pulse becomes │ Total │ - │ │Irregularity │ │ │ regular │ dura- │ -Subj.│Water│ After│ At │ │ At│ After exper. │ tion │ - │temp.│exper.│ body│ Mg. │ min.│time & admin. │of ir- │ Remarks - │ [°C]│ time│ temp.│stroph.│[min.]│ strophanthin │ regu- │ - │ │[min.]│ [°C]│ │ │ │larity │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - * │ * │ * │ * │ * │ * │ * │ * │ * - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ -B. L │ 4│ 55│ 30│0.25 │ 65│ — │ — │Death in - │ │ │ │ mg., │ │ │ │ the - │ │ │ │ 4 cc.│ │ │ │ seventie - │ │ │ │ coram│ │ │ │ th - │ │ │ │ in. │ │ │ │ minute, - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ten - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ minutes - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ after - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ removal - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ from - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ water. - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ -L. H │ 4│ 30│ 31.5│0.25 │ 60│ — │ — │Death - │ │ │ │ mg., │ │ │ │ (heart - │ │ │ │ intra│ │ │ │ stopped) - │ │ │ │ cardi│ │ │ │ five - │ │ │ │ al. │ │ │ │ minutes - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ after - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ administ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ering - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ strophan - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ thin, - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ten - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ minutes - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ after - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ removal - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ from - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ water. - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ -V. E │ 5.2│ 60│ 30.3│0.25 │ 68│ — │ — │Death - │ │ │ │ mg., │ │ │ │ (heart - │ │ │ │ heart│ │ │ │ stopped) - │ │ │ │ , │ │ │ │ in the - │ │ │ │ masag│ │ │ │ sixty-si - │ │ │ │ e, │ │ │ │ xth - │ │ │ │ coram│ │ │ │ minute - │ │ │ │ in, │ │ │ │ during - │ │ │ │ cardi│ │ │ │ removal - │ │ │ │ azol,│ │ │ │ from - │ │ │ │ artif│ │ │ │ water. - │ │ │ │ icial│ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ respi│ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ ratio│ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ n. │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ -S. M │ 6│ 75│ 31.4│Artific│ 82│ — │ — │Death - │ │ │ │ ial │ │ │ │ (heart - │ │ │ │ respi│ │ │ │ stopped) - │ │ │ │ ratio│ │ │ │ in the - │ │ │ │ n, │ │ │ │ eighty-s - │ │ │ │ cardi│ │ │ │ eventh - │ │ │ │ azol.│ │ │ │ minute, - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ seven - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ minutes - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ after - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ removal - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ from - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ water. - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ -L. O │ 4.5│ 30│ 31.2│L. P │ 57│ — │ — │Death - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ (heart - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ stopped) - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ in the - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ sixty-fi - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ fth - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ minute, - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ eight - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ minutes - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ after - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ removal - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ from - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ water. - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - - FIGURE 13. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1609-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 92 - - LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER, 24 OCTOBER 1942, AND NOTE BY RUDOLF - BRANDT - -Reich Leader SS -Nr 1397/42 - - Field Command Post, 24 Oct 1942 - -Dr. Sigmund Rascher -Munich, Trogerstr. 56 - - Top Secret - - 3 copies - 2d copy - -Dear Rascher! - -I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th and 10th and both -notes of 16 October 1942. - -I have read your report regarding cooling experiments on humans with -great interest. SS Sturmbannfuehrer Sievers should arrange the -possibility of evaluation at institutes which are connected with us. - -I regard these people as guilty of treason and high treason, who, still -today, reject these experiments on humans and would instead let sturdy -German soldiers die as a result of these cooling methods. I shall not -hesitate to report these men to the offices concerned. I empower you to -make my opinion on this known to the offices concerned. - -I invite you to a personal conference in November as I cannot make it -sooner despite my great interest. - -SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff will once again get in touch with Field -Marshal Milch. You are empowered to make a report to Field Marshal -Milch—and, of course, to the Reich Marshal if he has time—concerning -those who are not doctors. - -I think that covers which have heat packets or something similar sewed -in their lining are the best for the warming of those who were stranded -at sea and were picked up in boats or small vessels and where there is -no possibility of placing these chilled people in a hot bath. I take it -for granted that you know these heat packets which we also have in the -SS and which were used by the Russians a great deal. They consist of a -mass which develops a warmth of 70° to 80° upon addition of water and -retains it for hours. - -I am very curious as to the experiments with body warmth. I personally -take it that these experiments will probably bring the best and lasting -results. Naturally, I could be mistaken. - -Keep me informed on future findings. Of course we will see each other in -November. - - Heil Hitler! - Yours - [Signed] H. HIMMLER - -2. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff - -Sent with request for acknowledgment. I present the report with the -request for acknowledgment and return since the Reich Leader SS in -Munich wants these copies again. - - [Signed] BRANDT - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-323 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 94 - - MEMORANDUM OF RASCHER ON WOMEN USED FOR REWARMING IN FREEZING - EXPERIMENTS, 5 NOVEMBER 1942 - -Sigmund Rascher, M. D. - - Munich, Trogerstrasse 56, 5 November 1942 -Subject: Requested report on concentration camp prostitutes. - -For the resuscitation experiments by animal warmth after freezing as -ordered by the Reich Leader SS I had four women assigned to me from the -women’s concentration camp Ravensbrueck. - -One of the assigned women shows unobjectionably Nordic racial -characteristics: blond hair, blue eyes, corresponding head and body -structure, 21¾ years of age. I asked the girl why she had volunteered -for the brothel. I received the answer: “To get out of the concentration -camp, for we were promised that all those who would volunteer for the -brothel for half a year would then be released from the concentration -camp”. To my objection that it was a great shame to volunteer as a -prostitute, I was told: “Rather half a year in the brothel than half a -year in the concentration camp”. Then followed an account of a number of -most peculiar conditions at camp Ravensbrueck. Most of the reported -conditions were confirmed by the three other prostitutes and by the -female warden who had accompanied them from Ravensbrueck. - -It hurts my racial feelings to expose to racially inferior concentration -camp elements a girl as a prostitute who has the appearance of a pure -Nordic and who could perhaps by assignment of proper work be put on the -right road. - -Therefore, I refused to use this girl for my experimental purposes and -gave the adequate reports to the camp commander and the adjutant of the -Reich Leader SS. - - [Signature] DR. S. RASCHER - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-320 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 103 - - LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO BRANDT, 28 JANUARY 1943, AND - RASCHER’S REPORT ON HIS DISCUSSIONS WITH GRAWITZ AND - POPPENDICK - -The Ahnenerbe -The Reich Business Manager - -To the Reich Leader SS Berlin, 28 January 1943 -Personal Staff G/R/8 S 1/Sb - [illegible shorthand notes] - -Attention: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt -Berlin S. W. 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8 - - Secret! - -Subject: Research of Dr. Rascher. -Dear comrade Brandt! - -I submit to you enclosed a documentary note of Dr. Rascher on his -discussion with the Reich Physician SS [Reichsarzt SS] of 13 January -1943. I would be much obliged to you if you could advise us as to what -attitude we or Dr. Rascher are to take in the future. I am slightly -astonished about the course of the discussion, for the orders of the -Reich Leader SS were especially to the effect that we—that is the -Ahnenerbe—were to take Dr. Rascher’s work under our care. The argument -of SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz, that it constituted an unbearable -situation to have a non-physician give information on medical matters, -is not pertinent. I have never claimed to be a judge of medical matters, -nor do I consider it as one of my duties. My duty merely consists of -smoothing the way for the research men and seeing that the tasks ordered -by the Reich Leader SS are carried out in the quickest possible way. On -one thing I certainly can form an opinion—that is, on who is doing the -quickest job. - -If things are to go on in the future as SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz -desires, I am afraid that Dr. Rascher’s work will not continue to -advance as fast and unhampered as hitherto. - - With comradely greetings, - Heil Hitler! - Yours - [Signature] SIEVERS - -[Stamp]: -Personal Staff RF SS / Enclosure -Received on: 4th Feb. 1943 1 -Journal No: 1786/43 - -To: RB Please turn! - COPY - - _Documentary note_ on discussion Reich Physician SS [Reichsarzt - SS] Dr. Grawitz—SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Poppendick—SS - Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher, 13 January 1943. - -RASCHER: Reports on freezing experiments with water and emphasizes that -they have been concluded practically, but not in theory. - -GRAWITZ: Question about the memorandum. Whether Rascher believes this to -be absolutely established for dry freezings, too? - -RASCHER: No, a lot of theoretical work is still to be done, primarily -many practical experiments have still to be conducted. - -GRAWITZ: That is my opinion, too. We cannot distribute a memorandum to -the troops, abolishing all former views, if this is not entirely -well-founded, as otherwise uncertainties will arise among the troops. I -shall write to Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt that I am asking the -Reich Leader SS not to distribute the memorandum before a well-founded -method of treatment of dry frozen persons has been established. - -RASCHER: Very well, that’s why the Reich Leader SS gave me the order of -13 December 1942. But I urgently want to emphasize that the results of -the freezing experiments with water have been established and are -well-founded. - -GRAWITZ: Well, now, this had to be mentioned in the letter to Brandt so -that you are not blamed in any way! You see, from my former activities -(mention of some hospital) I know so much about metabolism that I am -almost a specialist in this field and can help you enormously. - -RASCHER: As I understood, Gruppenfuehrer, that’s why I am to turn to -your office for glass materials, chemicals, etc. - -GRAWITZ: No. Not only for that. You have to turn to me in all medical -matters, since after all, I am Reich Physician SS and all medical -affairs are subordinate to me. It is absolutely necessary that all -medical matters destined for the Reich Leader SS go through my office. - -RASCHER: I don’t know, Gruppenfuehrer, if this was the intention. I am -under the direct orders of the Reich Leader SS and I have always -reported directly to him. I have never received orders to another -effect. - -GRAWITZ: You certainly will be transferred to the Waffen SS? - -RASCHER: Yes, I hope so. The transfer is under way. - -GRAWITZ: There you are. Then you will be under my orders as a physician -at any rate and all matters will have to go through my office, otherwise -the situation would be unbearable. - -RASCHER: But I am under the orders of the Ahnenerbe! Am I to report to -you, too, what I have to report to the Ahnenerbe? - -GRAWITZ: Certainly! At least a copy on all medical matters has to be -sent to me for my information. For it is an unbearable situation to have -a non-physician, such as Standartenfuehrer Sievers, inform me on medical -matters if he does not have the adequate special medical education. I -have nothing against Sievers. Well, yes, I know you are of the -Ahnenerbe. I don’t say anything against your work for the Ahnenerbe, but -I want you to work with the Ahnenerbe for the Reich Physician. I shall -also write to Brandt on that matter. - -POPPENDICK: Well, I already had to ask Standartenfuehrer Sievers several -times to come to me to receive information. In the long run all medical -matters wind up with us, anyway. - -GRAWITZ: You see, this is the point! When the Reich Leader SS does not -understand a medical matter clearly he hands the matter over to me, -anyway. - -RASCHER: Of course, I am grateful for every kind of help, but I believe -that I am primarily under the orders of the Ahnenerbe. - -GRAWITZ: Certainly not when you are a member of the Waffen SS. I am able -to be of much use to you through my knowledge and I shall inform Brandt -to that effect. It isn’t that I bear a grudge against you or your work, -but all things have to follow their course. Don’t be afraid, scientific -thefts don’t occur with us. As I know, you have to acquire the right of -giving lectures at universities as a qualified academic teacher under -Pfannenstiel. And you will need support. Do you want to be supported by -me? - -RASCHER: Of course, I thank you most obediently. Where I need support, I -gladly accept it. - -GRAWITZ: Well, we shall wait then with the memorandum until you have a -few hundred cases, then we shall continue. Of course, I would not like -the Reich Leader SS to believe that I want to impede you. But if -something has not yet been proved to a great extent, we cannot -distribute anything to the troops that might spread uncertainty among -the responsible authorities! - -Everything may be true for freezing by water, but we don’t have that in -the Waffen SS. So you agree to wait with the distribution of the -memorandum. - -RASCHER: Gruppenfuehrer, anyway it is entirely your affair, whether the -memorandum is issued now, as you are responsible for it. I composed the -memorandum on the basis of these few cases of dry freezing, because the -Reich Leader SS pressed for its publication. In composing the -memorandum, I was fully aware of the necessity that many experiments -still have to be carried out, and I also submitted this view on the -occasion of a discussion with the Reich Leader SS in Dachau. But the -Reich Leader saw the results in Dachau and in wanting to help the troops -ordered the memorandum to be drawn up. - -GRAWITZ: In composing a memorandum or in any other scientific work you -should not let anybody press you, not even the Reich Leader SS, that -will never do! Well now, you’ll send me a copy of all your medical -correspondence with the Ahnenerbe, and you’ll no longer write directly -to the Reich Leader SS in medical matters but write to me, as it comes -to me anyway. Will you do that? - -RASCHER: I’ll have to discuss the matter with Standartenfuehrer Sievers -first, this comes too much as a surprise. - -GRAWITZ: Well, I shall send you a copy of my letter to Dr. Brandt so -that you can get a clear picture. I am very pleased to have established -such a close contact with you. - -This is a certified true copy. - - [Signature] WOLFF - SS Untersturmfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1616-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 105 - - LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 17 FEBRUARY 1943, AND - SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTS FOR REWARMING OF CHILLED - HUMAN BEINGS BY ANIMAL WARMTH, 12 FEBRUARY 1943 - -Dr. S. Rascher -SS Hauptsturmfuehrer - - Munich, 17 February 1943 - -To the Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police Heinrich Himmler - -Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8 -Dear Reich Leader, - -Enclosed I present to you in condensed form a summary of the results of -the experiments made in warming up people who have been cooled off by -using animal heat. - -Right now I am attempting to prove through experiments on human beings -that it is possible to warm up people cooled off by dry cold just as -fast as people who were cooled off by remaining in cold water. The Reich -Physician SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, doubted very much that that -would be possible and said that I would have to prove it first by 100 -experiments. Up to now I have cooled off about 30 people stripped in the -open air during 9-14 hours at 27°-29°. After a time corresponding to a -transport of 1 hour, I put these subjects in a hot bath. _Up to now_ -every single patient was completely warmed up within 1 hour at most, -though some of them had their hands and feet frozen white. In some cases -a slight fatigue with slightly rising temperature was observed on the -day following the experiments. I have not observed any fatal results -from this extremely fast warming up. I have not so far been able to do -any warming up by “Sauna” as ordered by you, my dear Reich Leader, as -the weather in December and January was too warm for any experiments in -the open air, and right now the camp is closed on account of typhoid and -I am not allowed therefore to bring in subjects, for “Sauna” -experiments. - - * * * * * - -With most obedient greetings and sincere gratitude, and - - Heil Hitler! - Yours very devotedly - RASCHER -(enclosure) - - * * * * * - - Secret - _Experiments for rewarming of intensely chilled human beings by - animal warmth_ - -A. _Purpose of the Experiments_ - -To ascertain whether the rewarming of intensely chilled human beings by -animal warmth, i. e., the warmth of animals or human beings, is as good -or better than rewarming by physical or medical means. - -B. _Method of the Experiments_ - -The experimental subjects were cooled in the usual way—clad or -unclad—in cold water of temperatures varying between 4° C. and 9° C. -The rectal temperature of every experimental subject was recorded -thermoelectrically. The reduction of temperature occurred within the -usual span of time varying in accordance with the general condition of -the body of the experimental subject and the temperature of the water. -The experimental subjects were removed from the water when their rectal -temperature reached 30° C. At this time the experimental subjects had -all lost consciousness. In eight cases the experimental subjects were -then placed between two naked women in a spacious bed. The women were -supposed to nestle as closely as possible to the chilled person. Then -all three persons were covered with blankets. A speeding up of rewarming -by light cradles or by medicines was not attempted. - -C. _Results_ - -1. When the temperature of the experimental subjects was recorded it was -striking that an after-drop of temperature up to 3° C. occurred, which -is a greater after-drop than seen with any other method of rewarming. It -was observed, however, that consciousness returned at an earlier point, -that is, at a lower body temperature than with other methods of -rewarming. Once the subjects regained consciousness they did not lose it -again, but very quickly grasped the situation and snuggled up to the -naked female bodies. The rise of body temperature then occurred at about -the same speed as in experimental subjects who had been rewarmed by -packing in blankets. Exceptions were four experimental subjects who, at -body temperatures between 30° C. and 32° C., performed the act of sexual -intercourse. In these experimental subjects the temperature rose very -rapidly after sexual intercourse, which could be compared with the -speedy rise in temperature in a hot bath. - -2. Another set of experiments concerned the rewarming of intensely -chilled persons by one woman. In all these cases rewarming was -significantly quicker than could be accomplished by two women. The cause -of this seems to me that in warming by one woman only, personal -inhibitions are removed, and the woman nestles up to the chilled -individual much more intimately. Also in these cases, the return of -complete consciousness was strikingly rapid. Only one experimental -subject did not return to consciousness and the warming effect was only -slight. This person died with symptoms suggesting cerebral hemorrhage, -as was confirmed by subsequent autopsy. - -D. _Summary_ - -Rewarming experiments of intensely chilled experimental subjects -demonstrated that rewarming with animal warmth was very slow. Only such -experimental subjects whose physical condition permitted sexual -intercourse rewarmed themselves remarkably quickly and showed an equally -strikingly rapid return to complete physical well-being. Since -excessively long exposure of the body to low temperatures implies danger -of internal damage, that method must be chosen for rewarming which -guarantees the quickest relief from dangerously low temperatures. This -method, according to our experiences, is a massive and rapid supply of -warmth by means of a hot bath. - -Rewarming of intensely chilled human beings by human or animal warmth -can therefore be recommended only in such cases in which other -possibilities for rewarming are not available, or in cases of specially -tender individuals who possibly may not be able to stand a massive and -rapid supply of warmth. As for example, I am thinking of intensely -chilled small children, who are best rewarmed by the body of their -mothers, with the aid of hot water bottles. - -Dachau, 12 February 1943. - [Signature] DR. S. RASCHER - SS Hauptsturmfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-268 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 106 - - LETTER FROM HIPPKE TO HIMMLER, 19 FEBRUARY 1943, ON - FREEZING EXPERIMENTS IN DACHAU - -The Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe - - Berlin W8, 19 February 1943 - Leipziger Strasse - Phone numbers: [illegible] - Cable address: Reichsluft Berlin - -File No. 55 No. 81038/43 (2 IIB) -Reich Leader, - -The experiments conducted in Dachau concerning protective measures -against the effects of freezing on the human body by immersion in cold -water have led to results of practical use. They were conducted by the -Stabsaerzte [Captains] of the Luftwaffe, Professor Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. -Fink, and Dr. Rascher in cooperation with the SS, and are now finished. -The results were reported upon by those who worked on them during a -conference on medical problems arising from distress at sea and winter -hardships, on 26 and 27 October 1942, at Nuernberg. The detailed report -on the conference is at present in state of preparation. - -I thank you most gratefully for the great assistance that the -cooperation of the SS has meant for us in conducting the experiments, -and beg you to express our thanks, too, to the commander of the Dachau -camp. - - Heil Hitler! - [Signature] PROF. DR. HIPPKE - -2 [?] Feb 1943 -1509/43 -RF - [stamp illegible] -[figures 1509/43 handwritten] - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1580-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 107 - - LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER, 26 FEBRUARY 1943, ON - FREEZING EXPERIMENTS IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS - AUSCHWITZ AND LUBLIN - -The Reich Leader SS - 1516/43 - - 26 February 1943 - Secret -Dear Rascher, - -Best thanks for your letter of 17 February[29] with report on warming-up -experiments. I agree to experiments being made at Auschwitz or Lublin, -although I believe that the time for the cooling-off and warming-up -tests under natural conditions of cold weather has nearly passed for -this winter. - -I am sending this letter at the same time to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, -whom I request to order the execution of your experiments at Lublin or -Auschwitz. - - Kind greetings and - Heil Hitler! - Yours - [Signed] H. HIMMLER -2. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl - -Transmitted with request to take note and to take the necessary steps. - - By order, - [Signature (illegible)] - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-292 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 111 - - LETTER FROM RASCHER TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 4 APRIL 1943, - REPORTING ON DRY-FREEZING EXPERIMENTS IN DACHAU - -Dr. med. Sigmund Rascher - [4 April 1943] -To Herr Oberregierungsrat SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt -Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 8 -Much esteemed Obersturmbannfuehrer! - - * * * * * - -The question of the saving of people frozen in the open air has in the -meantime been cleared up, since, thank goodness, there was once again a -period of heavy frost weather in Dachau. Certain people were in the open -air for 14 hours at -6° C., reached an internal temperature of 25° C. -with peripheral freezings, and were _all_ able to be saved by a hot -bath. As I said: it is easy to contradict! But before someone does so, -he should come and see for himself. Moreover, a report about freezing in -the open air will be sent to the Reich Leader in the next few days. - - With best wishes, - Heil Hitler! - Yours gratefully, - [Signature] S. RASCHER - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-322 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 114 - - LETTER FROM RASCHER TO KEINDL, 28 APRIL 1943, ABOUT PREVIOUS FREEZING - EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED AT SACHSENHAUSEN - -Dr. med. S. Rascher, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer -Personal Staff Leader SS -Division (Abteilung) Chief at the Institute for Military - Scientific Research -Office A (Amt A) - - Dachau 3K, 28 April 1943 - -To the Commander of the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp, -SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Keindl -Sachsenhausen, near Oranienburg - -Obersturmbannfuehrer! - -By order of the Reich Leader SS, I have been conducting freezing -experiments on human beings in the Dachau concentration camp for more -than a year. Today I learned from an experimental subject that I was not -the only one conducting these experiments, but that, on the contrary, -already in October and November 1938, similar experiments were conducted -in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. -Samenstrang is said to have frozen experimental subjects—that is -prisoners—in cold water, and subsequently revived them by means of warm -water or hot compresses. As I was to work out and have worked out a -prescription for the Waffen SS for the resuscitation of frozen persons -(for the campaign in the East), knowledge of all preliminary experiments -in my field of work is of great importance for me. - -I therefore request that if possible you let me know what kind of -experiments were conducted in your camp, and, if possible, what results -were obtained in connection with these experiments. - -As you might not know anything about me, please make inquiries about me, -if necessary, either at the Personal Staff of the Reich Leader SS -(Obersturmbannfuehrer Baumert) or from the Commander of the Dachau -concentration camp, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Weiss. - - Yours sincerely - Heil Hitler! - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-231 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 116 - - LETTER FROM RASCHER TO SIEVERS, 17 MAY 1943, CONCERNING, - A CONFERENCE WITH GEBHARDT ON FREEZING EXPERIMENTS - - Copy - By Messenger! - -Dr. med. Rascher, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer - Dachau 3K, 17 May 1943 - -To: Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe Society -Attn: SS Standartenfuehrer Sievers -Berlin-Dahlem, 16 Pueckler Street - -Dear Standartenfuehrer! - -The following contains a short account of my report to SS Gruppenfuehrer -Dr. Gebhardt. - -On 14 May 1943, I reported to SS Gruppenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Gebhardt at -Hohenlychen. I had hardly arrived, when SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Gebhardt -asked me in a very loud voice to explain how I dared to submit -specialist medical reports directly to the Reich Leader SS (he was -referring to the treatise on “The Cooling of Human Beings Outdoors”). I -actually did not even get a chance to speak and practically couldn’t -reply anything. Then, when I tried to reply, Prof. Dr. Gebhardt said -that if I wanted to defy him, my train would be leaving for Berlin at 3 -o’clock. When I was finally given the opportunity to speak I was able to -point out to Prof. Dr. Gebhardt that the report in question was not -meant to be a strictly scientific work, but simply was a short -information for the Reich Leader SS on the results of the experiments -conducted up to now. Dr. Gebhardt had taken the view that the report was -unscientific, and if a student of the second term dared to submit a -treatise of that kind, he would throw him out. Later on I was able to -tell him that of course all the physiological-chemical experiments that -could be carried out in Dachau with the available instruments had indeed -been conducted. Whereupon Dr. Gebhardt replied: “I can imagine that you -did a lot of work; one can tell it from this job. If I had not believed -that you did a lot of work, I would not have asked you to come at all.” - -In addition Dr. Gebhardt said that he intended to merge all the groups -of physicians working independently within the SS, since that would suit -the Reich Leader SS much better than individual people working on their -own. Besides that, he said that I somehow ought to learn university -methods of working since very likely I did not yet have the proper -training. He suggested that it was necessary for me to get out of Dachau -since there I was quite left to myself and had no guidance whatsoever; -that since I intended to enter upon a university career, I would by all -means have to complete the training of a university assistant first. He -further said that all those SS physicians, who are qualified to enter -upon a university career, had the duty to do so. Upon my reply that for -that reason I was already in touch with Professor Pfannenstiel, -Professor Gebhardt replied that these matters ought to be processed by a -centralized agency. In future it would not do that I send any reports -directly to the Reich Leader SS, but that further reports to serve their -purpose would have to be transmitted through him to the Reich Leader. If -the report had reached a suitable stage, he would first inform the Reich -Leader SS, and then go to see the Reich Leader SS together with me. -Finally Dr. Gebhardt asked me to give him data on my personal and -scientific career to enable him to make further arrangements. He -requested me to call again in the afternoon. - -When I called in the afternoon, I was, as in the morning, accompanied by -SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Fischer. This time Dr. Gebhardt was extremely -amiable. He asked me whether I now agreed with his arrangements; it -would be by far the best I could do, if I joined him. I should not -worry, but just continue my work in Dachau, until I had finished my -jobs. Later, one would see what was to be done for the future. Upon my -question, what it was all about, and who was my superior, whether the -Reichsarzt SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, who had come for an -inspection several days ago, the Reich Leader SS, as he personally had -promised me, or the Ahnenerbe, of which I had been a member for years, -Dr. Gebhardt suggested that all that will be straightened out. Just -trust it to me. But I’ll need your curriculum vitae soon, since I have -to report to the Reich Leader SS on 23 May. - -May I ask you, Standartenfuehrer, under whom I am actually working? -Under the Reich Leader SS, the Ahnenerbe, the Reich Physician SS or Dr. -Gebhardt? Dr. Gebhardt has already asked me why I am not a member of the -Waffen SS. Upon my answer that Dr. Hippke does not like to let me go, he -declared that I was too able for him to let me go. Standartenfuehrer! If -the same tug of war starts in the Waffen SS as has been going on between -Luftwaffe and the SS, I’d rather do without a transfer to the Waffen SS. -I was promised that I would continue to work under the Reich Leader SS -or under the Ahnenerbe. But I cannot serve several masters at the same -time. Of course I am convinced that SS Gruppenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Gebhardt -has the best of intentions. His assistants are enthusiastic about him. -If I am compelled to ask Prof. Dr. Gebhardt’s advice each time I am -going to start a new experiment, I will get so much involved in the -academic routine that I won’t even be allowed to experiment with such a -method as rapid resuscitation which overthrows all the established -clinical experiences because the results contradict Prof. Dr. Gebhardt’s -methods which are based upon centuries-old clinical experiences. Also -the cooperation with Professor von Luetzelberg would thus come to an -end, as these experiments are from the very start contradictory to the -hitherto recognized clinical experiences. I think, this arrangement -would stop everything that really ought to be experimented. - -I pray you with all my heart, Standartenfuehrer, to handle this affair -in such a way that Prof. Dr. Gebhardt, who is a very close friend of the -Reich Leader SS does not become my enemy. I think that Prof. Dr. -Gebhardt can and will be an extremely disagreeable adversary. Before I -get into trouble with him, I would rather resign my job and ask for an -immediate transfer to the Luftwaffe for combat service. I therefore ask -you again to deal with this affair with as much circumspection as it -actually requires, because in addition I am convinced that Prof. Dr. -Gebhardt (apart from his personal ambition) really has good intentions. - - * * * * * - - Very respectfully yours and - Heil Hitler! - Yours very devotedly - [Signature] S. RASCHER - -This is to certify that the above copy is true: - - [Signature] SIEVERS - SS Standartenfuehrer. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-432 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 119 - - LETTER FROM RASCHER TO NEFF, 21 OCTOBER 1943, CONCERNING - DRY-FREEZING EXPERIMENTS - -Dr. S. Rascher - Dachau, 21 October 1943 - -To -Police-Rottwachtmeister Walter Neff -Police Training Battalion I -Dresden-Hellerau - -Dear Neff: - -Your letter dated 11.10 reached me here on 15.10. First of all many -thanks for your decision to write such a detailed letter. I really was -very pleased about it. To come right away to the affair concerned: I am -very sorry to hear that you are being bullied, especially as there -exists no reason at all for it. Please let me know the name, rank, and -address of your commanding officer because I most certainly will take -the matter up. There is no purpose at all in your getting stuck there. -Finally I too know how the general condition of your health had been, -when you were still here, and I also am able to judge that you cannot go -through heavy infantry training. I am glad that you have become -accustomed to the ideals of the place and I am convinced that you would -be glad to go to the front. But on the other hand, I believe that I need -you more urgently than you are needed at the front. As a matter of fact -I need you for the following: _From the Reich Research Council_ -[Reichsforschungsrat] I got the order to carry out open country freezing -experiments and I think they will take place on the Sudelfeld. Now I -need urgently a most reliable man, acquainted with the material, and -that is you in this case. During the next few days I will go with -Sievers to the Fuehrer’s Headquarters [Fuehrerhauptquartier], and report -there in this sense, and will let you know immediately. - - * * * * * - -I expect your notice soon, and remain until then with sincerest -comradely regards, - - Your old chief, - [Initialed] R. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-690 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 120 - - LIST OF RESEARCH PROJECTS FROM THE FILES OF THE - REICH RESEARCH COUNCIL - - Cancer Research—70—copies 15 [pencil notation] - - 25th copy. - Worked on by: Professor Dr. K. Blome - Berlin SW 68 - Lindenstr. 42 77 [pencil notation] - Telephone: 174871 929 [pencil notation] - -Priority: “SS” - - SS-No. │ Requested by— │ Topic │Registration│Degree of - │ │ │ No. │ secrecy - │ │ │ │ - 0453 │Schwarz, Kruft │Combating of │ 2058/15 │ - │ │ potato bug. │ │ - │ │ │ │ - 0496 │Seel, Poznan │Investigation of │ 2118/15 │ - │ │ means for │ │ - │ │ combating │ │ - │ │ agricultural │ │ - │ │ parasites and │ │ - │ │ for disinfection│ │ - │ │ of the soil. │ │ - │ │ │ │ - 0328 │Rascher, Munich │Rewarming after │ 1879/15 │ - │ │ general freezing│ │ - │ │ of the human │ │ - │ │ body; healing │ │ - │ │ after partial │ │ - │ │ freezings; │ │ - │ │ adjustment of │ │ - │ │ the human body │ │ - │ │ to low │ │ - │ │ temperatures. │ │ - │ │ │ │ - 0329 │Hirt, Strasbourg │Changes in the │ 1881/15 │ - │ │ living organism │ │ - │ │ under the │ │ - │ │ influence of │ │ - │ │ poison gases. │ │ - │ │ │ │ - 0415 │von Borstell, Colonel,│Development of │ 1975/15 │ Secret. - │ Weimar-Nohra. │ aircraft │ │ - │ │ apparatus for │ │ - │ │ insecticides and│ │ - │ │ fungicides which│ │ - │ │ can be sprayed. │ │ - - Cancer Research - Worked on by: Prof. Dr. K. Blome - Berlin SW 68 - Lindenstr. 42 - Telephone: 174871 - Deputy: Dr. Breuer - Berlin-Steglitz - Grunewaldstr. 35 - Telephone: 726071 - - No. │ Requested by— │ Topic - │ │ - 0454/1857/15│Zipf, Koenigsberg │Tests of food colors for their - │ │ cancer-causing effect on - │ │ animals. - 0473/1838/15│Spek, Heidelberg │Physio-chemical investigations - │ │ on living cells. - - [Stamp] Top Secret -The Reich Research Council 22 [pencil notation] - -The Director of the Business Management - Committee -Cancer Research - - 3d copy - Authorized person: - Prof. Dr. Kurt Blome - Berlin SW 68, Lindenstr. 42 - -“Nesselsted” -Prof. Dr. Blome, Commissioner for Cancer Research, Berlin SW 68. - Lindenstr. 42 - - DE 1413—RPS—VLI/44 - SS 4891—0242 (1739/15) 44 - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF TRIBUNAL WITNESS - WALTER NEFF[30] - -_EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: When did the freezing experiments start? - -WITNESS NEFF: The first freezing experiments started during August or at -the end of July. They were conducted by Prof. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, -and Dr. Rascher. The freezing experiments can be divided into two -separate classes, the Holzloehner-Finke series, which were later -dropped, and a series where Dr. Rascher conducted these experiments -himself. - -Q. All right. Suppose you describe the experimental basin. - -A. The experimental basin was built of wood. It was 2 meters long and 2 -meters high. It was raised about 50 centimeters above the floor and it -was in Block No. 5. In the experimental chamber and basin there were -many lighting instruments and other apparatus which were used in order -to carry out measurements. - -Q. Now, you have stated that you can divide the freezing experiments -into two groups, one where Holzloehner and Finke were working with -Rascher and then the period after Holzloehner and Finke had left? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, will you tell the Tribunal approximately how many persons were -used over the whole period? That is, including both groups that you have -mentioned. - -A. Two hundred and eighty to three hundred experimental subjects were -used for these freezing experiments. There were really 360 to 400 -experiments that were conducted, since many experimental subjects were -used for more than one such experiment—sometimes even for three. - -Q. Now, out of the total of 280 or 300 prisoners used, approximately how -many died? - -A. Approximately 80 to 90 subjects died as a result of these freezing -experiments. - -Q. Now, how many experimental subjects do you remember that they used in -the Holzloehner-Finke-Rascher experiments? - -A. During that period of time approximately 50 to 60 subjects were used -for experimental purposes. - -Q. Did any of these experimental subjects die? - -A. Yes. During that period of time there were about 15, maybe even 18 -cases of death. - -Q. When was that experimental series concluded? - -A. It was concluded in the month of October. I think it was at the end -of October. At that time Holzloehner and Finke discontinued these -experiments, giving the reason that they had accomplished their purpose -and that it was useless to carry out further experiments of that kind. - -Q. And then Rascher continued experiments on his own? - -A. Yes. Rascher conducted these experiments saying that he had to build -a scientific basis for them and he prepared a lecture for Marburg -University on the subject. - -Q. How long did Rascher continue to experiment with freezing by cold -water? - -A. Until May 1943. - -Q. Now, were the experimental subjects for the freezing experiments -selected in the same way as for the high-altitude experiments? - -A. No. Here Rascher turned to the camp administration and told them that -he needed so and so many experimental subjects. Then the political -department of the camp selected 10 inmates by name. That list was sent -to the camp commandant and was signed by the camp commandant and they -were then sent to Rascher’s station and the subjects on that list had to -be experimented on. I was able to use the original list as evidence in -the first Dachau trial. - -Q. Do I understand then that the experimental subjects used in the -freezing experiments were political prisoners? - -A. There were a number of political prisoners and also a number of -foreigners, but there were also prisoners of war and inmates who had -been condemned to death. - -Q. These persons were not volunteers, were they? - -A. No. - -Q. Suppose you describe to the Tribunal exactly how these freezing -experiments were carried out, that is what tests they made, how they -measured the temperature and how the temperature of the water was -lowered in the basin and so forth? - -A. These basins were filled with water, and ice was added until the -water measured 3°, and the experimental subjects were either dressed in -a flying suit or were placed into the ice water naked. During the period -when Holzloehner and Finke were active, most experiments were conducted -under narcotics because he maintained that you could not find the exact -condition of the blood, and that you would exclude the will power of the -experimental subject if he was under an anaesthetic. Now whenever the -experimental subjects were conscious, it took some time until so-called -freezing narcosis set in. The temperature was measured rectally and -through the stomach through the Galvanometer apparatus. The lowering of -the temperature to 32° was terrible for the experimental subject. At 32° -the experimental subject lost consciousness. These persons were frozen -down to 25° body temperature, and now in order to enable you to -understand this problem, I should like to tell you something about the -Holzloehner and Finke period. During the period when Holzloehner and -Finke were active, no experimental subject was actually killed in the -water. Deaths occurred all the more readily because during revival the -temperature dropped even further and so heart failure resulted. This was -also caused by wrongly applied therapy, so that in contrast to the -low-pressure experiments, deaths were not deliberately caused. In the -air-pressure chamber on the other hand, each death cannot be described -as an accident, but as willful murder. However, it was different when -Rascher personally took over these experiments. At that time a large -number of the persons involved were kept in the water until they were -dead. - -Q. Now, Witness, you have identified the defendant Weltz in the -defendants’ dock. On what occasion did you meet Weltz? - -A. I met Weltz in Munich. I saw him there once. According to my -recollection it was in Luftgau Kommando VII, Prinzregenten Strasse No. -2, and I saw him speak to Rascher there, and at a later date Rascher -told me that that was Professor Weltz. I remember this incident -especially since Rascher often discussed Weltz and his animal -experiments, which he carried out with reference to freezing. I never -saw Professor Weltz in Dachau or anywhere in the camp. - -Q. Do you know, Witness, whether Rascher and Weltz exchanged information -on freezing problems? - -A. I don’t know that. I would assume so, since Rascher discussed -Professor Weltz’ experiments, and he certainly must have had some -discussions with Weltz on the subject. However, I know of no -correspondence with Weltz. - -Q. Do you recall the occasion when two Russian officers were -experimented upon in the freezing experiments? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Will you relate that incident to the Tribunal? - -A. Yes. It was the worst experiment which was ever carried out. Two -Russian officers were carried out from the bunker. We were forbidden to -speak to them. They arrived at approximately 4 o’clock in the afternoon. -Rascher had them undressed and they had to go into the basin naked. Hour -after hour passed and while usually after a short time, 60 minutes, -freezing had set in, these two Russians were still conscious after 2 -hours. All our appeals to Rascher asking him to give them an injection -were of no avail. Approximately during the third hour one Russian said -to the other, “Comrade, tell that officer to shoot us.” The other -replied, “Don’t expect any mercy from this Fascist dog.” Then they shook -hands and said “Goodbye, Comrade.” If you can imagine that we inmates -had to witness such a death, and could do nothing about it, then you can -judge how terrible it is to be condemned to work in such an experimental -station. - -After these words were translated for Rascher in a somewhat different -form by a young Pole, Rascher went back into his office. The young Pole -tried at once to give them an anesthetic with chloroform, but Rascher -returned immediately and threatened to shoot us with his pistol if we -dared approach these victims again. The experiment lasted at least 5 -hours until death occurred. Both corpses were sent to Munich for autopsy -in the Schwabing Hospital. - -Q. Witness, how long did it normally take to kill a person in these -freezing experiments? - -A. The length of the experiment varied, according to the individual -case. Whether the subject was clothed or unclothed also made a -difference. If he was slight in build and if in addition to that he was -naked, death often occurred after only 80 minutes. But there were a -number of cases where the experimental subject lived up to 3 hours, and -remained in the water until finally death occurred. - - * * * * * - -Q. Will you describe to the Tribunal the method used for rewarming the -victims of the freezing experiments? - -A. During the period when Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke were there, -rewarming was in the beginning carried out by massage and partly by -means of injections of drugs affecting the heart, and also by means of -rewarming by electrical heaters and sometimes by means of a warm bath. -At the end of the Holzloehner period, the hot water rewarming method was -introduced, and that was carried out until the end of the rewarming -experiments with the exception of a few special experiments with animal -heat. About 10 women from the concentration camp at Ravensbrueck were -ordered to report to Dachau to supply the heat and were forced to press -themselves against the body of the frozen person in order to rewarm him -in that manner. These are the methods which were employed in order to -rewarm the frozen body. - -Q. Now, Witness, did I understand you to say that the hot water bath -method of rewarming was not adopted until after Holzloehner and Finke -had left? - -A. After Holzloehner and Finke had left the station, hot water rewarming -was also carried out. - -Q. Do you recall receiving orders in September 1942 from Sievers to take -the hearts and lungs of five inmates who had been killed to Professor -Hirt in Strasbourg for further scientific study? - -A. It is correct that I had to take specimens belonging to five persons -who died during experiments from the morgue to Hirt in Strasbourg. I -myself, of course, have never done any dissecting and therefore did not -prepare these specimens. Sievers ordered me to go to Strasbourg and -there deliver the glasses to Professor Hirt, together with an -accompanying letter. This was the end of September or the beginning of -October. The travel warrant had been made out by Sievers and the -traveling expenses were also paid by the Ahnenerbe. - -Q. Had the five experimental subjects been killed shortly before you -left for Strasbourg? - -A. I cannot remember with absolute certainty whether the specimens were -fresh or whether they were taken from older corpses. I do know that -among the specimens there was one from a Dutchman. I cannot recollect -for certain the nationality of the other four. - -Q. Did you deliver these hearts and lungs to Professor Hirt in -Strasbourg? - -A. I delivered them in Strasbourg, not to Professor Hirt himself but to -the laboratory at the University there. The letter to Professor Hirt I -handed to him personally, and he wanted me to return and see him in the -afternoon, since he had to give me something to take to Dachau. He gave -me a sealed letter to Dr. Rascher and a parcel for Sister Pia which I -handed to Rascher to pass on. - -Q. Now, Professor Hirt was also a member, in fact the head of the -Department of the Ahnenerbe Society, was he not? - -A. We knew that Professor Hirt was also making experiments and belonged -to the Ahnenerbe Society. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT HANDLOSER[31] - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - -MR. MCHANEY: Let us pass on, General. Your attorney asked you whether or -not you ever gained any information concerning the freezing experiments -carried out by Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke. Do you deny that you -ever received knowledge on that matter? - -DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: I said, no. - -Q. As a result of the Eastern campaign weren’t you very much interested -in “Cold” problems? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Isn’t that why you sent army officers to the Luftwaffe conference in -October 1942? - -A. Of course the interest in cold problems was of an important nature. I -do not know who assigned them. From May until the end of October I was -with headquarters in the Ukraine and I believe that the chief probably -telephoned me as to whether or how many people we should send, and he -may have made some proposal, and I think I would have told him on that -occasion “Yes, I am in full agreement. Send somebody there.” It is quite -a matter of course that we took people who knew something about cold -because they were the people who would be interested in it. - -Q. Well, having sent them, you then immediately lost interest in the -problem, I suppose? - -A. No, I did not lose interest. At some period of time somebody probably -reported to me whether something particular had happened or whether -there were any particular results or not, and what could be exploited by -us. But, at that time there was no mention of anything in particular -having occurred, nor was it said that any particular revolutionary -results were achieved. At any rate, I cannot recollect that anything -like that happened. I should merely like to point out that my interest -in cold problems was in our particular sphere of these problems, that is -the so-called earth-bound cold, at normal height or at the most in the -mountains where it concerned soldiers in mountain troops. That was -something which we discussed during various meetings, at first in 1942; -it was discussed to a great extent, and very exact directives were -contained in the reports of these meetings. You will find them in 1942 -and you will find them in 1943. Naturally we were interested in cold -problems, and it is quite a matter of course that whenever we were -invited by the Luftwaffe to send our experts we did. The same thing is -done everywhere, not only in the army and in the field of medicine, but -in technical fields as well. - -Q. Well, I thought that was probably correct, General; now I want to put -it to you that Holzloehner had made a very remarkable discovery and one -which I am sure came to your attention. Holzloehner and Rascher had -found out that this massive warm bath was an extremely effective way of -reviving persons from shock due to long exposure to cold, a treatment -which had been first discovered by a Russian in the 19th century but had -been forgotten somehow. Wasn’t this a matter remarkable enough so that -Schreiber, who was at this meeting, or one of the many other army -doctors who were down there, would perhaps call it to your attention, -after the extreme cold you had suffered in Russia the previous winter? - -A. I said already before that we were always interested in cold problems -and as you say, very correctly, mainly because of this terrible winter -of 1941-42. I knew before that our regulations which were valid up to -the war and perhaps during the first year of the war, stated that people -who were frozen had to be rewarmed very slowly. The entire population -was informed that a frozen person should not be rewarmed too quickly. -Even before that we included in our regulations that one should -concentrate on rewarming, and certain forms of rewarming were described. -If we army people who knew the Russian front were not as impressed by -this warm bath, as you may think we were, it was probably because there -were no warm baths available along the entire Eastern front, and this -plays quite a large part in the impression any new invention may have -made on us. - -Q. Well, now, General, let me put it to you this way. Did you make any -changes in the basic directives concerning the rewarming after shock -from exposure to cold after this Luftwaffe conference or after the -conference in December 1942? - -A. If you look through the reports of the meetings and the directives it -is quite possible that somewhere, I can’t tell you exactly where -although I have it, something is said about warm or hot baths in regard -to freezing. You yourself brought to our knowledge again, through a -document, that in December 1942, that is, after Nuernberg, Holzloehner -spoke about his rewarming questions during a conference in the Academy. -That was reported to 300 or 400 men who transferred that information to -the front and I am sure that later on new directives contained -information about the warm bath, too. - -Q. I am sure it did, too, General. That is the reason I asked you -because I think that there is no doubt that great importance was -attached to the results of this experiment in Dachau by Rascher, -Holzloehner, and Finke. I now want to ask you if you didn’t actually -hear Holzloehner speak in December 1942 at the meeting of consulting -physicians at the Military Medical Academy? - -A. I cannot recollect that, and I must say once more that that is -something which was done within the various expert branches. I am sure -you will see that these expert branches dealt with these suggestions -themselves. However much one so desires, it is not possible to -participate in several expert branches simultaneously. - -Q. Well, then, to put it to you, General, this speech by Holzloehner is -reported in our Document NO-922, Prosecution Exhibit 435, and it goes -on—you have a very short synopsis here of his report but he does give -clinical observations in cases of deaths resulting from cold, and I find -that you made some comments at this cold session on page 51 of the -original report. It reads: - - “Handloser stresses the extraordinary importance of education - also in combating cold effects and appeals to all medical - officers, in their capacity as leaders of the health service, to - see to it that through frequently repeated explanations each - individual is taught to observe the necessary precautionary - measures.” - -A. May I ask you where it is? Is it with reference to the lecture by -Holzloehner? At any rate, it seems to be within the framework of the -cold problem. - -Q. General, I will put the German to you so that you can see for -yourself. General, let us read the little summary of the speech by -Holzloehner because the Tribunal does not have this document before it. -It reads: - - “Stabsarzt Professor Holzloehner: - - “Prevention and Treatment of Freezing - - “In case of freezing in water of a temperature below 15° - biological counter-measures are practically ineffective, whether - in the case of human beings or animals. Human beings succumb to - reflectory rigidity, increase of blood sugar, and acidosis, at - an earlier stage and to a greater extent than animals. At a - rectal temperature of below 30° under such conditions of - distress at sea auricular flutter regularly sets in; at under - 28° heart failure frequently occurs in human beings. - (Over-exertion due to unequal distribution of blood, increased - resistance, and increased viscosity.) Treatment with drugs is - senseless and has no effect. In the case of human beings, best - results are also achieved with hot baths. The foam-suit was - developed as a prophylaxis against freezing in water below 15°.” - -Now, General, after that little summary of the talk by Holzloehner there -were several other lecturers on freezing problems and then at the end we -have the gentlemen who made some comments on these lectures; we find -among them Bremer, Dr. Hippke, the man who commissioned these -experiments, and Jarisch and Buechner. Now I want to ask you if this -document refreshes your recollection so that you can tell us whether or -not you heard this report by Holzloehner. - -A. Yes, after reading what I have in my hand now, it is quite possible -that I listened to this lecture. At the same time, it is a proof that I -have not as good a memory as you assumed, because I already had this -document in my hands once before here in Nuernberg; you once gave it to -me and I forgot about it. - -Q. Now, did Holzloehner describe clinical observations about human -deaths resulting from cold in this lecture which you heard? - -A. I cannot tell you that. - -Q. Does it not say so in your own report here? - -A. It says here that Holzloehner belonged to the Luftwaffe and as far as -I was informed later, Holzloehner had gained a large amount of -experience from his service on the Atlantic Coast. I am sure that was -something which was mentioned during his lecture. He had an emergency -sea station near the Atlantic coast and near that there was a hospital -where he treated these frozen people who had been rescued from the sea. -There was no cause to suspect anything special behind this. - -Q. Was it apparent to you that he carried out experiments on human -beings? - -A. No. - -Q. Well, General, we have heard some testimony here about the talk -Holzloehner gave in Nuernberg 2 months before this and, as I recall, -there was some indignation in this meeting in October 1942, because all -these gentlemen realized what had happened; are you telling me that no -rumor of this seeped up from Nuernberg to Berlin in 2 months, so when -the same man gave the same talk, you gentlemen were in complete -ignorance about the fact that these experiments had been carried out on -living human beings in a concentration camp? - -A. I cannot say how far any discussions or any indignations were noted -in Nuernberg. At any rate, I never heard anything about any rejection or -any indignation. I could well imagine that if I were to hold a lecture -somewhere and I afterwards gained the impression that there was some -kind of obscurity, or some particular sensation, and if 2 months later, -I gave the same lecture at another place, I would naturally change my -lecture and would draw my conclusions from what I had learned -previously. I am sure that this might well have been the case here. At -any rate after reading this excerpt, if a few pages are missing here and -if one doesn’t look at the pages exactly, one must assume that the man -noted down here as Handloser spoke immediately after the lecture of -Holzloehner. I believe that the report of the meeting itself will show -you that a few other lectures took place between the lecture of -Holzloehner and the discussion. You will also have to admit that -considering the fact that we were approaching winter again (this meeting -took place in December 1942) my remarks did not refer so much to -Professor Holzloehner’s lecture, but were merely a reminder that we -wanted to do everything and in that way wanted to concentrate our entire -interest on the front where freezing took place in order to help our -soldiers. That is all this discussion was. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT SCHROEDER[32] - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: I don’t believe you have told the Tribunal yet about the -conversation you had with Holzloehner on his freezing experiments, have -you? - -DEFENDANT SCHROEDER: What experiments do you mean? What conversation do -you mean? Do you mean in 1940? - -Q. General, you know as a matter of fact there apparently is some -dispute between the prosecution and yourself about the precise date, but -you knew during the course of the war that Holzloehner, Finke, and -Rascher had carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates at -Dachau? - -A. Yes, I learned that in my office in 1944, as I said here before. - -Q. And, I am suggesting to you that after you learned that Holzloehner -had been implicated in those experiments you called him in and talked to -him? - -A. Yes, oh yes. I know when you mean now, yes. There are two things -which play a part here. I said yesterday that in 1940 Holzloehner had -furnished people who were rescued from the sea to the Rescue Station at -Witze, where he first gained experience. Then I lost sight of -Holzloehner, since I left the west in the year 1941, and I saw him again -for the first time in the fall of 1944, when for some reason that I do -not know, he visited one of the men in my office. At that time I spoke -to him briefly, and since I had learned in the meantime that he was -conducting, experiments in Dachau, I asked him whether that was correct -or how he was doing it. I remember at that time he told me that he was -conducting experiments based on the experience which he had gained on -the coast, and he was supplementing these experiments by conducting -experiments on human beings in Dachau. At that time he was speaking -about six or seven criminals who had been condemned to death were put at -his disposal for that purpose. At that time, he said nothing about any -fatalities. I gained the impression then that the entire manner of the -experiments had impressed him mentally. I had the feeling that he did -not want to speak about it; his suicide later confirmed that. - -Q. Well, General, I think this is all rather significant. I think you -should have probably made some mention of it before this date. When was -this meeting with Holzloehner? - -A. I mentioned it during my interrogation; I think that was in the fall -of 1944. I cannot remember the exact date. It could have been November -1944. I am not quite sure. - -Q. Well, this was after you had initiated the sea-water experiments, -then; is that right? - -A. Considerably later, yes. - -Q. And, as I recall, you also said in this interrogation that you had -seen this report by Holzloehner, which I understand you have denied -heretofore; now, had you seen Holzloehner’s report or not? - -A. No, nor did I ever say that I had. He reported to me on this, but he -did not show me a report. - -Q. Now, General, I am reading from a summary of an interrogation of you -made on 21 October 1946, and one paragraph reads as follows: “Schroeder -also knows about the ‘See-Not’ and ‘Winter-Not’ reports from which he -could conclude that human beings were used for experiments. This could -also be concluded from Holzloehner’s report on the freezing experiments, -and it could furthermore be seen from the comments which Dr. Rascher -wrote on the above matter. Schroeder learned about these matters in -1944.” Now, is this summary inaccurate? - -A. Very inaccurate. - -Q. All right, let us get it straight. In the first part of 1943 you -received a report on the Nuernberg meeting, did you not? - -A. Yes. - -Q. In May 1944, Becker-Freyseng told you that Holzloehner, Finke, and -Rascher, had carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates at -Dachau, did he not? - -A. That is not the right way of putting it. He said that Holzloehner had -made the experiments; nothing was said to me about Rascher and Finke. I -did not know them then. I learned their names only since I was -imprisoned. - -Q. You mean you had not heard up to then that Rascher had worked with -Holzloehner on these experiments; is that right? - -A. No, I did not say that. I heard Rascher’s name for the first time in -this report of 1945 when I was imprisoned. - -Q. Well, I do not know, General, but I am going to look in just a -minute—I think Rascher’s and Finke’s names are mentioned in this report -which you got in the first part of 1943 on the Nuernberg meeting. You do -not recall that? - -A. No. - -Q. And I very well remember that Rascher had made a comment on this -rather long lecture by Holzloehner, from which it could clearly be seen -that Rascher himself was experimenting with Holzloehner; do you not -remember that? - -A. I can say that now, because in the meantime I have seen these -reports, “See-Not” and “Winter-Not,” and have read them through -carefully and acquainted myself with the various names, and I know that -in this report there is an extensive report by Holzloehner and after -that a short remark by Rascher. I did not pay any attention to it at -that time because I had no connections with Rascher, nor did I see any -reason why I should; but I did interest myself in Holzloehner’s report -because I knew him from working with him on the French coast. - -Q. Well, we will come back to the report in just a moment, but right now -I want to go on with your discussion with Holzloehner. Can you tell us, -more or less, exactly what he told you? - -A. That is a little too much to ask me to recall a brief remark that I -made in 1944 on the occasion of a very short visit. I do recall that I -met Holzloehner outside my hut, and I asked him to step in a moment; -then I asked him about the experiments. He answered me briefly and that -was the end of our conversation. The only thing that struck me was that -Holzloehner, who previously had been a very lively and brisk person, -seemed very depressed and worn out. I attributed that to the 5 years of -war that had passed. That there were other reasons, perhaps, for this, I -could only adduce later from his tragic demise. It could be that I -commented to my adjutant on this subject. I am not sure at the moment, -but I think it is quite possible because Augustinick knew Holzloehner -very well and liked him. Perhaps Augustinick can be asked about that -later. - -Q. You said a moment ago you got the impression that Holzloehner did not -want to talk about these experiments, and you also had been dabbling in -Dachau experiments yourself. I think under these circumstances it might -be expected that you would have questioned Holzloehner rather closely -about what went on in his experiments. You did not do that? - -A. He told me briefly that his observations from the English channel -coast could be checked on experiments being performed in Dachau on -criminals condemned to death, and that these experiments had been -described in the report which he had submitted. That made it perfectly -clear what was going on, so why should I ask anything further? I was not -particularly interested in going into that specific result. - -Q. Well, were the sea-water experiments over at that time? - -A. Yes, some time before, and that must have been why Holzloehner came -to me because these experiments had long been concluded. - -Q. You did not have any one in the nature of representative at the -Nuernberg meeting in October 1942? - -A. No. - -Q. Now, you mentioned this report which you received on that meeting; -that is Document NO-401, Prosecution Exhibit 93. You stated that you did -not know that Rascher and Finke were working with Holzloehner. I found a -statement on page 11 of this report which reads as follows: “For the -relevant statements, we have to thank the cooperation of Stabsarzt Dr. -Rascher and Stabsarzt Dr. Finke; they refer to a stay in water of 2 to -12 degrees.” That statement indicates very clearly that Rascher and -Finke were working with Holzloehner, does it not? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, I think you stated to your own defense counsel that it was -impossible for you to conclude from this report that experiments had -been carried out, but rather, you thought they were clinical -observations made on people fished out of the North Sea, is that right? - -A. Yes, I based my testimony solely on the Holzloehner report which was -the only thing that interested me. There were reports by Rose and others -but I did not read them. I glanced through them briefly but gave no -further attention to them because I did not know the people who had -drawn them up. - -Q. Let’s just look briefly at one or two points here and see if they -might not indicate to you, if you thought about it a little bit, that -these were really experiments and not clinical observations on people -who accidentally fell into the sea. For instance, on page 11 of the -translation it states as follows: - - “The rapidity with which numbness occurs is remarkable. It was - determined that already 5 to 10 minutes after falling in, an - advancing rigor of the skeletal muscles sets in, which renders - the movement of the arms especially increasingly difficult. This - also affects respiration. Inspiration is deepened, and - expiration is delayed. Besides this, heavy mucous secretions - occur.” - -Now, when you read that little paragraph about a man who had been in the -water 5 to 10 minutes where it is said that he had rigor of the skeletal -muscles, where his inspiration is deepened and his expiration is delayed -and where there is a heavy mucous secretion, did you imagine that they -had Dr. Holzloehner in a lifeboat in the North Sea making these -observations on some aviator who had fallen in accidentally? Did you -think that, General? - -A. Yes, that’s what I thought. You don’t know the local situation at -Visson. There were a beach and dunes, and a guard from the rescue -station always stood on the dunes to keep an eye on the water and the -surrounding country, particularly when flights to England were taking -place, so that it actually did happen that fliers bailed out and fell -into the water just in front of the shoreline. Rescue boats were ready -at that time and went out to sea immediately, so that it was altogether -possible that fliers who fell into the water close to the coast could -very quickly be observed and rescued. These are the facts of what -actually took place at that rescue station at that time. - -Q. On the same page they have this remark: “With the drop of the rectal -temperature to 31°, a clouding of consciousness occurs, which passes to -a deep, cold-induced anaesthesia if the decline reaches below 30°.” - -Now, do you suppose that they pulled this aviator in and inserted a -rectal thermometer and found his temperature at 31° and then tossed him -back and let it drop another degree, all the time watching closely a -clouding of consciousness, and then hauled him back in when it was 30° -and noted a deep, cold-induced anaesthesia? - -A. No, that isn’t the correct way to put it either. This is one of the -observations that was new to us and to which we paid a great deal of -attention in order to explain these incomprehensible fatalities, namely, -the fact that when the people were removed from the water their -temperature still dropped and simultaneously with the drop in -temperature a fatal collapse of the heart occurred. This was one of our -fundamental and new observations. And I must report again and again that -this rescue house was a small place, but it did have the apparatus for -observing these people very exactly. That was the sense of the whole -thing. - -Q. General, you’ve already covered yourself a little bit by saying you -didn’t read these discussions after Holzloehner’s lecture very -carefully; but I want to read you the one by Rascher, in any event, and -see if you won’t admit that if you had read this little comment by -Rascher that there could have been no doubt whatsoever in your mind that -experiments were carried out and not observations on aviators in the -North Sea. This is on page 15 of the translation, and Rascher has said: - - “Supplementing the statements of Holzloehner, there is a report - on observations according to which cooling in the region of the - neck only, even if it lasts for several hours, causes merely a - low sinking of the body temperature up to 1° C., without - changing the blood sugar level or the heart function. Checking - of the rectal temperature was carried out by taking the - temperature in the stomach and showed complete agreement. After - taking alcohol, body temperature decreases at a quicker pace. - After taking dextropur, the decrease is slower than with the - experiments in both a sober and an alcoholic condition. Hot - infusions (10 percent dextro solution, table salt solution, - tutofusin, table salt solution with pancortex) were successful - only for a time.” - -Now, General, if you had read that, wouldn’t it have been perfectly -clear that these were experiments? - -A. Today, of course, after this whole question has been exposed I -should; but at that time I never suspected the possibility from that -report that these were a special group of human experiments. I can say -that here under oath, and I should like to reiterate it. That was my -attitude toward the matter at that time and it has only been changed by -what I have discovered here. - -Q. I might also point out to you that Benzinger’s comment expressly -speaks of Holzloehner’s experiments repeatedly; but I assume that that -also made no impression on you? - -A. I can say one thing to that. My comrades, the medical officers in my -office at that time in Italy, had no notion either that human -experiments were the basis for these reports. Never was one single word -said about such a thing on the occasion of my inspection visits. Of -course, during my visits to the Mediterranean such matters were brought -up; but I never heard any indication that these reports were the result -of a long series of experiments on human beings. In other words, others, -too, did not see so clearly as is pointed out here that these were human -experiments. - -Q. And you heard no rumors in the air force at all about these -experiments, although there had been a large meeting at Nuernberg in -October, with considerable comment there about these experiments? -Holzloehner later gave a lecture before all the consulting physicians, -at least those who attended the meeting on internal medicine where he -spoke. He gave another report there on these experiments. You never -heard any rumors in the air force about these things; is that right? - -A. No. - -Q. You never talked to Finke about these experiments, did you? - -A. I have stated frequently that I don’t even know Finke. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT SIEVERS[33] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - -DR. WEISGERBER: During the subsequent period you came in contact with -the cold experiments of Dr. Rascher? - -DEFENDANT SIEVERS: I once went to Dachau in order to participate in -administrative conferences at the time when Dr. Rascher, Professor -Holzloehner, and Dr. Finke were concluding a cold experiment. That is to -say, the experimental subject had just been placed into a room, but I -didn’t see anything else of this experiment. - -Q. On the occasion of this experiment, or on the occasion of a -discussion which perhaps followed, did you hear anything more in detail -about Rascher concerning these experiments? - -A. These three men were very busy reading the apparatus used in -connection with that experiment. I was told that it was necessary to -apply the warm covers as quickly as possible. Professor Holzloehner -stated that they had almost concluded their experiments and that further -experiments hardly seemed necessary. No scientific questions were -discussed at that time. - -Q. Did you see any report or did you receive reports from Rascher about -these cold experiments? - -A. No. These reports also went directly to Himmler from Rascher, as -becomes evident from the documents which have been submitted here. - -Q. In Document 1611-PS (_Pros. Ex. 85_), you find a letter sent by the -Reich Leader SS to Dr. Rascher, dated 22 September 1942. In the second -paragraph it states that it was sent to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers -for information. Paragraph 1 mentions the interim report on the cold -experiments by Dr. Rascher at the Dachau concentration camp. One could -conclude therefrom that you received this interim report. - -A. This interim report went directly from Rascher to Himmler, otherwise -Himmler wouldn’t have answered Rascher direct. I don’t think, however, -that it is out of the question that Rascher had told Hitler in this -interim report, or in some other way, that when I heard of these cold -experiments I considered them to be perverse. I assume that by sending -me that report Himmler’s opinion on that subject was to be transmitted -to me, and that is why I received a copy of that letter for my -information. - -Q. Now, would you be good enough to turn over one page, and you will -find there Dr. Rascher’s letter dated 3 October 1942. (_NO-285, Pros. -Ex. 86._) This letter is obviously directed to Dr. Rudolf Brandt. It -becomes evident from that letter that Rascher applied to you in a number -of matters, is that correct? - -A. Yes, I shall revert to that briefly, first of all concerning the -low-pressure chamber. He says here that he turned to me in order to take -steps regarding the low-pressure chamber. I didn’t do anything about -that, at least not on the basis of this request by Rascher, only later -when Himmler arrived at Munich and when he himself ordered me to send -him this draft letter which was previously discussed. He further says -that he turned to me regarding a teletype which requested the furnishing -of women for these experiments. Since Himmler had already issued orders -regarding the furnishing of experimental subjects, there was nothing -left for me to do. - -Q. Didn’t you participate in a second cold experiment? - -A. Yes, together with Dr. Hirt, whom I had to accompany by order of -Himmler, as he had been included in Rascher’s experiments with Himmler’s -approval. Himmler probably had realized in the meantime that Rascher -alone would not be sufficient in order to clarify these scientifically -very extensive and difficult questions. Hirt could only come to Munich -for one day because of his state of health and for that reason asked -that everything be prepared beforehand, so that he could gain insight -into all the work results which had been obtained so far. I told Rascher -to prepare everything according to Hirt’s desire. A professional -criminal was presented for the purpose of this experiment. - -Q. Was that a professional criminal who had already been condemned to -death, and how did you know whether it was such a criminal? - -A. Before the experiment started Hirt wanted to look at the files -because there was a possibility that this experiment would end fatally. -The sentence was furnished by the Criminal Police Department of the Camp -Administration. We saw that this was a sentence which had been passed by -a regular court, and it became evident therefrom that this man had more -than 10 years’ penitentiary behind him, and had been recently, sentenced -to death because of murder and theft. Hirt furthermore asked the man -whether he knew that this experiment might end fatally, whereupon the -man answered that he was well aware of it. He said that he would have to -die anyway for he was a confirmed criminal, and he just could not stop -his criminal activity; therefore he deserved death. - -Q. Did you convince yourself of that by asking the experimental subject -whether he was actually a volunteer? - -A. After Hirt’s questioning I personally asked the man whether he agreed -to that experiment. He thereupon said that he was in full agreement, -providing it didn’t hurt him. This assurance could be given to him -because the experiment was carried out under complete anaesthesia. I -didn’t participate in the entire experiment, but I saw that this man was -given an anaesthetic. - -Q. You yourself saw the files from the criminal police? - -A. Yes, I read through them, together with Hirt. - -Q. Well, I guess there can be no doubt that this was a professional -criminal sentenced to death by a regular court? - -A. This was a very regular sentence. All previous sentences were listed -in the files, and I remember in addition to the death sentence, he had -already had 10 years’ penitentiary. - - * * * * * - -Q. Now, would you please be good enough to turn to page 86 of the -document book before you? This is a report about a so-called “Cold -Conference” dated 26 and 27 October 1942. Did you receive this report in -the Ahnenerbe? - -A. I certainly didn’t receive it and I don’t remember having seen it -anywhere. - -Q. Didn’t Curator Wuest receive that report? - -A. I do not believe so. The scientific work in connection with Rascher, -which only concerned Himmler personally, was always dealt with directly -by Rascher and Himmler. These matters were only sent to Wuest if Himmler -actually sent them himself. I don’t believe that has happened in this -particular case. At any rate, Wuest never told me anything about it. -These reports and the research assignments just discussed lay completely -outside the interests and sphere of Wuest. - -Q. What do you know about the so-called dry-cold experiments of Dr. -Rascher? - -A. I only know about these experiments on the basis of Himmler’s order -which was sent by Himmler to Pohl and Grawitz because of the furnishing -of the equipment. I don’t know whether these experiments were actually -carried out. At any rate, I only found out about that here in this -courtroom. As a prerequisite for the execution Rascher said that it was -necessary for them to be performed in the mountains. Himmler had also -ordered that these experiments be carried out in the grounds of the -mountain villa at Sudelfeld. I was to see to it that accommodation was -available there. Investigations, however, proved that the terrain at -Sudelfeld was not suitable for that purpose. At the same time I had -heard that there were a sufficient number of cases of freezing to be -found in hospitals at the front. I therefore asked Rascher why it was -necessary for him to carry out any further experiments. He evaded my -question and merely declared categorically that he would have to abide -by Himmler’s order. - -Q. Which year was that? - -A. That was at the end of 1942. - -Q. The order was at the end of 1942? - -A. The end of 1942. The conversation with Rascher about the -accommodation took place afterwards. - -Q. And that was intended for the winter of 1943-44? - -A. No, for 1942-43. Since the terrain at Sudelfeld was not suitable, -some other place had to be found and I handled this matter in a very -dilatory manner. Rascher pressed me on the matter and Himmler was rather -indignant, but after all I couldn’t create a house by myself. Himmler -subsequently ordered that preparations be made for these experiments to -be carried out at least in the next winter. I think I made a mistake, I -think it must have been the winter of 1943-44. I’m sure it was 1943-44, -and I think that afterwards Himmler said that preparations were to be -made for 1944-45. These experiments, however, were never carried out -because Rascher was already arrested in the spring of 1944. - -Q. In that case you are saying that these dry-cold experiments were not -carried out in the mountains in the winter of 1943-44. You assisted in -preventing these experiments from being carried out by delaying the -finding of suitable accommodation? - -A. Yes. - -Q. I will now briefly summarize your testimony with reference to the -count concerning cold experiments. - -MR. HARDY: If it please your Honor, the defense counsel has put -questions to the witness and the witness has testified to these -questions. I really think summations after each experiment are -unnecessary here. That can take place in his closing statement. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: A short summation on the part of defense counsel -might be in order, as long as it does not contain too much repetition. - -DR. WEISGERBER: Yes, your Honor. You accidentally attended the -completion of a cold experiment by Dr. Rascher at Dachau. You had seen -no reports about Dr. Rascher’s experiments and received no knowledge -about them in any other way. The furnishing of the experimental subjects -for the rewarming experiments were not your business, and you actually -had nothing to do with it. You attended a further experiment under the -circumstances which you have previously described. You know nothing -about any dry-cold experiments being carried out in Dachau itself. You -succeeded in delaying and finally completely frustrating the dry-cold -experiments in the mountains. Is that correct? - -DEFENDANT SIEVERS: Yes, that is correct. - -Q. After searching your mind, did you do anything in that connection -which went beyond the orders given you by Himmler? - -A. No, in no way at all. - - * * * * * - ------ - -[28] Figure 14, headed “Mean Values from Group of Four Experiments each -at 4° C. [39.2° F.] to 4.5° C. [40.1° F.] Water Temperature,” is a chart -showing the skin temperature and the rectal temperature of four -experimental subjects each of whom respectively in a sober state, was -given 100 cubic centimeters of alcohol one hour before the start of the -experiment, and was given 100 grams of pure dextrose one hour before -start of the experiment. The three curves indicating skin temperature -show drops to 16° C. and below after 60 to 80 minutes; the three curves -showing rectal temperature show a low of 22.3° C. and 21.3° C. after 70, -100, and 110 minutes respectively, and then an increase to 31.3° C. -after 130, 200, and 230 minutes respectively. - -[29] 1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105, see p. 249. - -[30] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17-18 -December 1946, pp. 595-695. - -[31] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 11, 12, -13, and 18 February 1947, pp. 2815-3104. - -[32] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 25, 26, -27 February 1947, pp. 3470-3700. - -[33] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 9, 10, -11, 14 April 1947, pp. 5656-5869. - - 3. MALARIA EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf -Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and Sievers were charged with special -responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving -malaria experiments (par. 6 (C) of the indictment). Only the defendant -Sievers was convicted on this charge. In the case of the defendant -Mrugowsky the judgment of the Tribunal makes no special reference to -this charge. - -Although the defendant Rose was not charged with _special_ -responsibility for participation in malaria experiments, the prosecution -offered proof to show some participation by Rose in these experiments. -However, the Tribunal in its judgment refrained from making a finding of -guilt or innocence as to Rose, since malaria experiments were -particularized in paragraph 6 (C) of the indictment and since Rose was -not among those defendants who were charged with special responsibility -by name (judgment, vol. II). The Tribunal said that the manner of the -prosecution’s pleading “constituted, in effect, a bill of particulars -and was, in essence, a declaration to the defendants upon which they -were entitled to rely in preparing their defenses, [and] that only such -persons as were actually named in the designated experiments would be -called upon to defend against the specific items. Included in the list -of names of those defendants specifically charged with responsibility -for the malaria experiments the name of Rose does not appear. We think -it would be manifestly unfair to the defendant to find him guilty of an -offense with which the indictment affirmatively indicated he was not -charged.” - -“This does not mean that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was -inadmissible against the charges actually preferred against Rose. We -think it had probative value as proof of the fact of Rose’s knowledge of -human experimentation upon concentration camp inmates.” - -The Tribunal did make findings of guilt or innocence with regard to -several experiments which were not particularized in detail in the -indictment and concerning which the indictment did not name any -particular defendants as having special responsibility. For example, the -prosecution introduced evidence concerning phlegmon, polygal and gas -oedema experiments (_subsections 12-14, see pp. 653 to 694_) under the -general charge of paragraph 6 of the indictment, which alleges that the -criminal experiments “included, but were not limited to” the -particularized experiments. (_See also introductions to sub-section -12-14, see pp. 653-4, 669-70 and 684._) - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the malaria experiments -is contained in its final briefs against the defendants Rose and -Sievers. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 280 to -283. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these -experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants -Sievers and Rose. It appears below on pages 283 to 288. This -argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 289 -to 314. - - b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST - DEFENDANT ROSE_ - - * * * * * - -With respect to the malaria experiments, two questions are presented for -consideration: first, whether the malaria experiments were performed in -a criminal manner, and second, whether the defendant Rose was connected -with such experiments. - -That the performance of the malaria experiments in the Dachau -concentration camp from February 1942 until the end of the war was -criminal has not been seriously disputed by any of the defendants. In -December 1941, while working in Italy, Dr. Claus Schilling met Conti who -became interested in supporting further work by Schilling on malaria -problems. A meeting was arranged with Himmler who gave his permission -for experiments to be carried out in the Dachau concentration camp. -Schilling began his work in Dachau in February 1942 and continued his -experiments until the end of the war. He was primarily concerned with -discovering a way of immunizing persons against malaria. During the -course of the experiments, approximately 1,200 concentration camp -inmates were infected with malaria either by being bitten by infected -mosquitoes or by injections of malaria-infected blood. After having been -infected, the prisoners were treated with various drugs, including -quinine, neosalvarsan, and pyramidon. Most of the experimental subjects -were non-German nationals. Of the experimental subjects infected, -approximately 30 died as a direct result of the experiments and an -additional 300 to 400 died as a result of complications. - -The above facts are established by the Review of the General Military -Commission in the case of the U. S. against Weiss and others, held at -Dachau, Germany. (_NO-856, Pros. Ex. 125._) Claus Schilling was a -defendant in that case and was convicted and sentenced to death. In an -affidavit submitted in evidence before that Tribunal, dated 30 October -1945, Schilling admitted that the experimental subjects were not -volunteers. - -One of the assistants to Schilling in his experiments at Dachau was Dr. -Ploetner, who was a member of the Institute for Military Scientific -Research of the Ahnenerbe under the defendant Sievers. Sievers conferred -with Ploetner regarding the malaria experiments and received reports -from him. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123; entries for 30 January, 22 February, -23 May, 31 May, 1 June, 24 August._) Rose stated that he learned that -Ploetner was a collaborator of Schilling through an inquiry to the -Journal of Tropical Medicine in the year 1944. Ploetner had published an -article in that magazine and it had come to Rose’s attention. (_Tr. -6339._) - -The witness August Vieweg testified for the prosecution and -substantiated the findings of the Military Commission at Dachau. Vieweg -was first subjected to the malaria experiments himself and thereafter -served as an inmate-assistant in the malaria ward. Vieweg testified that -Schilling experimented on approximately 1,100 inmates, including -Germans, Poles, Russians, and Jugoslavs. Among the Russian inmates used -were prisoners of war. Seven or eight of the subjects died in the -malaria station, primarily as a result of pyramidon poisoning. (_Tr. p. -428._) He also testified that to his knowledge, an additional 60 inmates -died after having been transferred from the experimental station. He -further stated that none of the inmates volunteered, that he personally -did not, and that the experimental subjects were not freed as a result -of undergoing the experiment. The original infection card from the files -of Schilling in Dachau, showing the date of infection of the witness -Vieweg with “Culture Rose,” was introduced. (_NO-983, Pros. Ex. 128_; -_see also Tr. pp. 584-5_.) - -The defendant Rose participated in the criminal experiments of Schilling -by furnishing him material with which to carry out the experiments. This -material was furnished by Rose with knowledge of facts which would have -led any reasonable man to the conclusion that Schilling was carrying out -criminal experiments. Rose had known Schilling for many years and -succeeded him as Chief of the Department for Tropical Medicine in the -Robert Koch Institute. Moreover, Rose, by his own admission, was an -adviser to Dr. Conti, who arranged for Schilling to carry out his -experiments in Dachau. It is highly unlikely that such an arrangement -would have been made without consulting Rose. - -Rose furnished Schilling with malaria spleens for his experiments in -Italy during the year 1941, a fact which Rose denied on the stand until -contradicted by his letter to Schilling, dated 3 February 1941. -(_NO-1756, Prog. Ex. 486._) Rose continued to furnish infection material -to Schilling after he set up his experimental station in Dachau. Rose -and his witnesses admitted that anopheles eggs were sent to Schilling in -1942, but Rose, after that occasion, issued instructions that no more -material was to be sent to Schilling because he did not agree with his -research aims. (_Tr. p. 6415._) On 4 April 1942, Schilling wrote to Rose -asking for “Culture Rose” to continue his experiments. This letter bears -the dateline “Dachau, 3K, Hospital for Inmates,” and it was initialed by -Rose on 17 April 1942. Schilling stated that he would be “very thankful -* * * for this _new_ support of my work.” [Emphasis supplied.] That Rose -complied with this request of Schilling’s is established because the -witness Vieweg was himself infected with “Culture Rose.” - -On 5 July 1943, in a letter, also with the notation “Dachau, K3, Malaria -Station,” Schilling thanked Rose for a consignment of atroparvus eggs -and accepted Rose’s offer to send him his excess eggs. This letter -mentions the “Prisoner August,” who obviously was the witness, August -Vieweg. This letter was initialed by Rose on 27 July. (_NO-1753, Pros. -Ex. 488._) On the same date Rose replied to Schilling’s letter, advising -him that at the next favorable opportunity, a shipment of anopheles eggs -would be made to him. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST - DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ - - * * * * * - -Sievers had knowledge of and supported the criminal malaria experiments -in Dachau. He testified that early in 1942 he learned from Himmler that -Schilling was conducting malaria experiments in Dachau. (_Tr. p. 5692._) -In a memorandum dated 3 April 1942 concerning a consultation between -Sievers and Dr. May on the location of an experimental station for the -Ahnenerbe, Sievers mentioned as a persuasive reason for locating in -Dachau the fact that Schilling was carrying out his malaria experiments -there. (_NO-721, Pros. Ex. 126._) Although this memorandum gives the -name as “Schling”, Sievers testified that the name Schilling was -intended. (_Tr. p. 5693._) - -The witness Vieweg testified that in late 1943 or early 1944 Sievers -made several visits to Schilling’s malaria station where he consulted -with Ploetner, who was a collaborator of Schilling’s. (_Tr. pp. 445-7, -464._) He stated that Sievers consulted with Schilling and also -inspected the laboratory. (_Tr. p. 423._) Sievers testified that the -purpose of these visits and consultations was to arrange for the -transfer of Ploetner to the Institute for Military Scientific Research -of the Ahnenerbe. - -A number of entries in the Sievers diary for 1944 prove that Sievers was -connected with and supported the malaria experiments. On 30 January he -received a memorandum by Ploetner on malaria. A notation of 22 February -states that “further work in the matter of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. -Ploetner to be done through RGF [Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer Conti].” -Ploetner, in addition to his work with Schilling, was also collaborating -with Rascher in the blood coagulation experiments. (See entries of 29 -January and 14 April.) On 10 May 1944, the entry indicates that -Rascher’s research work was transferred to Ploetner. This was apparently -a result of Rascher’s difficulties in connection with the kidnapping of -children by him and his wife. On 23 May 1944, Ploetner was charged with -the management of the Ahnenerbe division in Dachau. The entry for 31 May -indicates that Sievers and Grawitz reached an understanding concerning -Ploetner’s continued collaboration with Schilling. On 21 June, Sievers -conferred with Schilling about limiting Ploetner’s activities with him -after his transfer to the Ahnenerbe. Ploetner was actually appointed -department head in the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the -Ahnenerbe on 27 June. The entry for 24 August 1944 notes that -collaboration between Schilling and Ploetner had been agreed upon. -(_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._) - - * * * * * - - c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR - DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ - - * * * * * - - _Malaria Experiments_ - -1. Under the direction of Professor Dr. Schilling, malaria experiments -were carried out in Dachau concentration camp in the years 1941-1944. - -2. According to the statements in the verdict of the United States -Military Court at Dachau of 26 January 1946 (_NO-856, Pros. Ex. 125_) a -great number of people were killed in these experiments. - -3. Sievers had not the slightest connection with either Professor -Schilling’s malaria experiments or with any other malaria experiments. - -The prosecution charges Sievers with participation in malaria -experiments. - - “As can be seen in all spheres of this devilish experiment - program in Nazi Germany, the defendants charged with the malaria - experiments had on their side an extensive knowledge of - Schilling’s activity. In some cases they worked actively with - the late Dr. Schilling”. (_Tr. pp. 403-4._) - -_For proof, the prosecution refers to NO-721, Prosecution Exhibit 126._ - -Regarding 3546-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 123, Sievers’ diary 1944, entries -of 22 February 1944 and 31 May 1944, the prosecution states: - - “From this document it can be seen that on or about 1 April 1942 - Wolfram Sievers had knowledge of Dr. Schilling’s activity in - Dachau. This letter represents a proposal for planned further - experiments and clearly shows that the distinguished Wolfram - Sievers in his capacity as Reich Business Manager of Ahnenerbe - had a finger in all these matters.” - -The defense has proved: - -Sievers stated in his cross-examination that the affairs which he -discussed with Dr. May on 1 April 1942 in Munich had nothing whatsoever -to do with malaria experiments. Sievers paid a social visit to Dr. -Schilling in Dachau in the middle of the year 1944 in order to get Dr. -Ploetner released for the manufacture of pectin. (_Cross-examination of -Sievers, German Tr. pp. 5692-93._) Neither Sievers nor the Ahnenerbe nor -the Institute for Military Scientific Research [Institut fuer -Wehrwissenschaftliche Zweckforschung] had anything to do with malaria -experiments. (_Cross-examination of Sievers, German Tr. p. 5693_; -_Statement of the witness Dr. May, German Tr. p. 5877_.) Neither can -there be proved from Point four of the memorandum of 1 April 1942 -(_NO-721, Pros. Ex. 126_) any connection of Sievers with the malaria -experiments. - -An affidavit of the secretary Hildegard Wolff relates how the memorandum -of 1 April 1942 and the drawing up of Point four came about. She took -down and typed the memorandum from Sievers’ dictation. (_Sievers 11, -Sievers Ex. 8._) According to this, Sievers, in the very hurried -dictation, said Frau Wolff should write down as Point four what Himmler -had said in his telephone conversation about the erection of the -institute in Dachau. Therefore, not Sievers’ but Himmler’s opinion is -stated here. - -Through the discussion of 1 April 1942 between Sievers and Dr. May it -had been made completely clear that human experiments within the -framework of the research order to Dr. May were absolutely out of the -question, not only for the reason that such experiments would have been -rejected on principle, but also because human experiments had nothing -whatsoever to do with the task of developing an insecticide for insects -harmful to human beings. Moreover, no other kind of human experiment was -carried out in connection with Dr. May’s work. The witness, Dr. May, -testified concerning Sievers’ diary entry of 22 February 1944 that there -never existed any cooperation between Dr. May, Dr. Ploetner, and Dr. -Schilling. (_Witness Dr. May, German Tr. p. 5878._) - -That, however, would have been a necessary condition in order to -classify Sievers’ administrative activity in this connection as -participation. - -As to points four, five, six, seven, there is no occasion for statements -concerning these points. - - _Summary_ - -Since Sievers took no part in the malaria experiments of Professor -Schilling at Dachau or any other malaria experiments, he is not guilty -of a crime. Thus any special responsibility and participation in malaria -experiments is excluded. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR - DEFENDANT ROSE_ - - * * * * * - - _Statements Concerning the Question of Responsibility of the - Defendant Rose for the Malaria Experiments Carried Out by - Professor Claus Schilling at the Concentration Camp Dachau and - Concerning the Question of Rose’s Participation in These - Experiments._ - -In the indictment, Professor Rose is not charged with special -responsibility for the malaria experiments carried out by Professor -Schilling at the Dachau concentration camp or with participation. The -defendant Rose is also not mentioned in Document Book No. 4 of the -prosecution which deals with these malaria experiments. In the course of -the verbal proceedings in the court, the prosecution has, however, -preferred charges against Professor Rose to this effect and introduced -several new documents in the trial during the cross-examination of -defendant Rose (_NO-1752, Pros. Ex. 487_; _NO-1753, Pros. Ex. 488_; -_NO-1755, Pros. Ex. 489_; _NO-1756, Pros. Ex. 486_) and also heard the -witness Vieweg concerning this question. (_German Tr., 13 Dec. 46, pp. -464-516._) - -This evidence shows that among others also the Department for Tropical -Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, under the direction of -the defendant Rose, sent anopheles eggs and malaria cultures on a few -occasions to Professor Schilling at Dachau during the years 1942 to -1943. At this juncture it should be mentioned that it is completely -immaterial for the judgment of the case what the name of the culture of -malaria tertiana was and whether or not its name was first changed by -Schilling to “Culture Rose”. The above-mentioned evidence also shows -that Professor Schilling told Professor Rose in two of his letters about -his breeding of mosquitoes; finally it also shows that Professor -Schilling asked the defendant Rose from Italy to procure for him spleens -of persons whose death had been caused by malaria. This was in 1941, at -a time when Schilling was not yet working in Dachau. According to the -testimony given by the defendant Rose during cross-examination (_Tr. pp. -6412-3_), he evidently complied with Schilling’s request. - -The Tribunal will have to decide whether these above-mentioned -activities of the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch -Institute under the management of the defendant Rose or his own -activities, constitute, within the meaning of the Penal Code, -participation on the part of the defendant Rose in the deeds of -Professor Schilling. In my opinion this decision can only be a negative -one, for the followings reasons: - -The delivery of material necessary for malaria research such as -anopheles eggs and malaria cultures was one of the official duties of -the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute. -(_Rose 11, Rose Ex. 27._) This department had a section which dealt -exclusively with these matters. This can be seen from both the yearly -reports of the Robert Koch Institute and from the report covering the -Third Conference East of Consulting Specialists discussing -work-projects. (_Rose 38, Rose Ex. 10_; _Rose 10, Rose Ex. 26_; _Rose -12, Rose Ex. 28_.) Deliveries of this kind are internationally common -practice and were never denied by the defendant Rose. It is also common -practice to use the organs of human corpses for the carrying out of -scientific research. (_Tr. p. 6474_; _Rose 51, Rose Ex. 50_.) - -The prerequisites for such deliveries are that they are requested either -by well-known institutes or by renowned research scientists. It cannot -be denied that Schilling, a coworker of Robert Koch and a member of the -malaria commission of the League of Nations, was famous as a malaria -research scientist. In a case of this kind, the non-delivery of such -material would have been an express violation of traditional practice -and of official duty. It is also not international usage for the orderer -to be questioned about the intended use of the material before its -delivery. (_Compare Mrugowsky 4a, Mrugowsky Ex. 96_; _Rose 49, Rose Ex. -48_; _German Tr., 19 June 47, p. 9680_.) Even if Professor Rose -declared, in the witness box during examination on his own behalf, that -he assumes full responsibility for it, it should be mentioned here that -such deliveries are carried out in such a routine way that the chief of -the institute often knows nothing about it since these matters are -dispatched independently by the personnel employed by him in the -laboratory. This also was the procedure in the case in question as the -evidence shows unequivocally. (_Rose 35, Rose Ex. 32_; _German Tr., 16 -Dec. 46, p. 507_; _Tr. pp. 6020, 6352_.) Thus, it is by no means -surprising that the defendant Rose could no longer remember the -correspondence with Professor Schilling put before him by the -prosecution during cross-examination especially since undoubtedly it -often happens that, as in the case in question, although the letters are -sent by the orderer to the head of such an institute personally, the -dispatching of the order is nevertheless carried out independently by -the personnel of the institute. - -Besides, the delivery of these materials by the Department for Tropical -Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute to Professor Schilling was by no -means a prerequisite for the carrying out of his experiments in Dachau, -since it has already been established that Schilling obtained no less -than 12 other malaria cultures from other institutes. (_NO-1752, Pros. -Ex. 487_; _German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. 509_.) Professor Schilling also -obtained mosquitoes from other institutes. (_German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. -507._) Naturally these institutes could also not have had any scruples -about sending material to Professor Schilling. In addition to this, -Professor Schilling personally maintained a group of people to catch -mosquitoes. (_German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. 508._) If Professor Schilling -turned at all to the Robert Koch Institute in this matter, the main -reason for doing so was that for decades he himself had been the head of -the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Institute and that personnel -were still working there who had formerly already been employed under -his management. - -The defendant Rose did, as a matter of fact, oppose Schilling’s -scientific approach to the problem as may clearly be seen from his -opinion on Schilling for the Reich Ministry of the Interior (_Tr. p. -6021_) and from his lecture in Basel. (_Rose 25, Rose Ex. 31._) However, -to judge by Professor Schilling’s personality and past he could, -nevertheless, not conceive the idea that Professor Schilling’s work at -Dachau could be anything but completely above reproach. Experiments on -human beings in malaria research are first of all, a matter of course -and common practice. Even if the defendant Rose always limited his own -work to the traditional evaluation of therapeutic malaria infections, -experiments on prisoners in this field must unquestionably be -permissible from an ethical point of view, as can be proved by the -malaria experiments on many hundreds of prisoners in American prisons. -(_Karl Brandt 1, Karl Brandt Ex. 1_; _Karl Brandt 117, Karl Brandt Ex. -103_; _Mrugowsky 80, Mrugowsky Ex. 76_; _Rose 50, Rose Ex. 49_.) Apart -from the fact that the delivery of material to Schilling by no means -obliged him to inform himself about the latter’s research work and its -ways and means, Rose really had no knowledge whatsoever of the object of -the research carried out by Schilling, and did not know the -collaborators of the latter. (_Rose 29, Rose Ex. 34_; _Rose 30, Rose Ex. -33_.) Much less was he informed about the conditions under which -Schilling was working in Dachau. - -The defendant Rose himself is a well-known malaria research scientist. -Malaria research was the main study of his department at the Robert Koch -Institute in Berlin and also later in Pfaffenrode. Professor Schilling -only worked with malaria tertiana (benign tertian) in Dachau. (_NO-1752, -Pros. Ex. 487._) Professor Rose, as an experienced malaria research -scientist, knew of course that this form of malaria is not a dangerous -one and that no complications are to be expected from it. (_Rose 50, -Rose Ex. 49._) The witness Vieweg (_Tr. pp. 457-458_) also expressly -stated that none of the prisoners died of malaria, but that the cause of -death could be traced back to technical errors [Kunstfehler] or to -complications, as, for example, faulty puncture of the liver resulting -in hemorrhage due to omission of an operation and an overdose of -pyramidon in therapy, outbreak of typhus among the experimental subjects -and finally, wrong doses in the treatment with salvarsan. Just in -passing it should also be mentioned here that the defendant Rose also -opposed this last-mentioned method of treatment. This method was -prohibited in the German Luftwaffe at his suggestion. (_NO-922, Pros. -Ex. 435._) - -No further explanation is necessary to show that solely the person -carrying out the experiments is responsible for technical errors and -negligence in the process. It seems to me that not even his superiors -who ordered the work, namely Himmler and Grawitz, were responsible for -them. However, a person assigned to supervise these experiments would -have been obliged to take action whenever he was informed of such -technical errors or negligence. The defendant Rose, however, was neither -assigned to supervise nor was he informed of these matters. It is also -unfair to assume that he knew about these matters, because he happened -to take part in the conference on freezing experiments which took place -in Nuernberg in October 1942. Firstly, the freezing experiments carried -out by Professor Holzloehner, although also taking place on Dachau, were -in no way connected with the malaria experiments carried out by -Professor Schilling. Furthermore, the participants of the conference -were misinformed about the method employed in these experiments and -about the status of the experimental subjects. (_Handloser 37, Handloser -Ex. 18_; _German Tr., 12 Dec. 46, p. 315_.) - -Now, to be sure, it is known that Holzloehner’s, Rascher’s, and Finke’s -freezing experiments were carried out in Dachau. That, however, was -certainly not made public at the above-mentioned Nuernberg conference. -Even if one of the participants suspected that experiments at a -concentration camp were concerned, he would not have had the slightest -reason to suppose that the concentration camp in question was Dachau. - -Schilling’s reports about his work were always sent to Himmler or -Grawitz but never went any further. That also explains why no reports -about Schilling’s experiments were found in the confiscated files of the -defendant Rose. (_Tr. pp. 5566, 6021_; _German Tr., 13 Dec. 46, pp. -466-7_; _German Tr., 26 Mar. 47, p. 5106_; _German Tr., 2 Apr. 47, pp. -5420-1_.) - -Rose personally was the prototype of a worker above reproach in the -field of malaria research and with regard to his care for the well-being -of his malaria patients (_Rose 47, Rose Ex. 35_), as shown by the -investigation undertaken by the competent American authorities. He -risked his own life (_Rose 8, Rose Ex. 29_) in order to assure the -orderly handing-over of his Malaria Research Institute in Pfaffenrode to -the Americans—in contrast to Dachau, without burning files and the -like, and also to insure continued regular care and medical treatment -for his patients. (_Rose 31, Rose Ex. 36_; _Rose 32, Rose Ex. 37_; _Rose -33, Rose Ex. 38_; _Rose 34, Rose Ex. 39_.) It would be completely -incomprehensible if such a man were to be made responsible for the -technical errors and negligence of another who was not even under his -influence. - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - - Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page - - NO-856 125 Extracts from the review of the 289 - proceedings of the general - military court in the case of - the United States vs. Weiss, - Ruppert, et al., held at Dachau, - Germany. - - _Defense Documents_ - - Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page - - Rose Document 11 Rose Ex. 27 Extracts from report of Professor 298 - Dr. E. Gildemeister concerning - the activities of the Robert - Koch Institute—Reich institute - for the fight against infectious - diseases. - Rose Document 47 Rose Ex. 35 Affidavit of Professor Dr. Hans 300 - Luxenburger, 24 March 1947, - concerning Rose’s interest in - therapeutical malaria - treatments. - Rose Document 50 Rose Ex. 49 Extract from the affidavit of 302 - Professor Dr. Ernst Georg Nauck, - M. D., Hamburg 4, - Bernhard-Nocht-Institute for - nautical and tropical diseases. - - _Testimony_ - - Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness August H. 303 - Vieweg - Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rose 308 - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-856 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 125 - - EXTRACTS FROM THE REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE - GENERAL MILITARY COURT IN THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES - _VS._ WEISS, RUPPERT, ET AL., HELD AT DACHAU, GERMANY - - * * * * * - -A series of experiments concerning the treatment of malaria were -conducted under the supervision of the accused, Dr. Schilling (_R -157_).[34] Three hundred to four hundred persons died as a result (_R -204, 206_). The facts elicited with respect to these experiments are set -out in detail _infra_ in connection with Dr. Schilling. - - * * * * * - -_B. The common design at the Kaufering Branch Camps of Dachau_ - - * * * * * - -_C. The Individual Defendants_ - - * * * * * - -15. _Dr. Claus Karl Schilling._ A special experimental station had been -set aside in the hospital for the performance of malaria experiments -under the supervision of the accused Dr. Schilling (_R 191, 157, 482_). -Schilling performed his research for the purpose of determining -immunization for and treatment of malaria (_R 192_). Requests for -prisoners were made by Schilling (_R 159-160_). One such request which -was admitted into evidence, stated that Polish prisoners were requested -(_R 160, Pros. Ex. 38_).[35] A list of inmates was prepared in the camp -physician’s office, the inmates being of all nationalities which were -represented in the camp, and was sent to the labor office which made a -copy of the list (_R 284, 285, 287, Pros. Ex. 47, 48, 157_). There the -list was confirmed by the Schutzhaftlagerfuehrer who sometimes made a -few changes in the list (_R 285_). These lists appeared about once every -month since about 1943 (_R 285_). None of the 1,200 selectees ever -consented or volunteered (_R 160-161_). Priests were often selected for -these experiments (_R 356, 353_). An inmate, a priest named Father Koch, -related his experience in that connection (_R 356_). He was first -X-rayed and then sent to the malaria station (_R 356-357, 353, 215_). He -was put into a little room where he received a box with mosquitoes which -he had to hold in his hands for about half an hour (_R 358_). That -occurred every day for one week (_R 358, 363_). Every afternoon another -box of mosquitoes was put in between his legs while he was in bed (_R -358, 363_). Each morning a blood smear was taken from his ear and his -temperature was measured each day and night (_R 358, 364_). He was given -quinine (_R 358, 364_). In about 17 days he left the hospital (_R 359, -364_). After being released from the hospital he had to report back -every Saturday (_R 360, 364_). Eight months later he had an attack of -malaria, which recurred precisely every 3 weeks for 6 months (_R 359, -363, 364, 365_). The symptoms he felt were high fever, chills, and pains -in the joints (_R 359_). Koch did not volunteer for the experiments nor -did the other prisoners who were mostly Poles and Russians, who -underwent the treatment with him (_R 356, 362_). - -The prisoners were infected with malaria by the injections of the -mosquitoes themselves or the injections of extracts of the mucous glands -of the mosquitoes (_R 157_). After having contracted malaria the -prisoners were treated in different ways (_R 157_). Some, as Father -Koch, were given quinine (_R 358_). Others were given neosalvarsan, -pyramidon, antipyrin, a drug numbered 92516, and several combinations of -these (_R 157_). Some people died as a result of these experiments (_R -158_). Schilling was present when autopsies were performed on some of -those persons (_R 158_). Whenever anyone died who had been injected with -malaria, a report of that death was made to the accused Schilling and -the chief doctor (_R 158_). Some of the victims died from the -intoxication of neosalvarsan and pyramidon, for many individuals could -not withstand large doses of these drugs (_R 159_). From the autopsy it -could be determined that a patient died of neosalvarsan since the -reactions were similar to arsenic (_R 193, 194_). In the beginning of -1944 three deaths resulted from the use of pyramidon (_R 194_). These -people were brought directly from the malaria ward to the autopsy room -(_R 197_). Two young Russian boys who were transferred from the malaria -ward to the general medical ward died within a day after their arrival -because of overdoses of pyramidon (_R 394-395, 405_). They had been sent -to the general ward so that the official cause of death which would be -stated would not be malaria (_R 405_). Pyramidon has a toxic on the -blood corpuscles which causes them to disintegrate (_R 195_). Malaria -was the direct cause of 30 deaths and as a result of complications, 300 -to 400 more died (_R 196, 197_). People who had died directly from -malaria had come straight from the malaria ward while the 300 to 400 -others had undergone the malaria experiment (_R 204_). These people who -had been subjected to malaria may later have died of tuberculosis, -pneumonia, or dysentery (_R 196_). Some of the patients whom Dr. -Schilling used had had tuberculosis before undergoing the experiments -(_R 11_). Fever type diseases have adverse effects on tuberculosis (_R -211_). An index of the malaria diseased people was kept in the hospital -office (_R 198_). - -Schilling received various visitors such as Dr. Rabbit, who was a Reich -SS physician at Oranienberg (_R 192_). - -A pretrial affidavit of the accused Schilling executed in his own -handwriting on 30 October 1945 before 2d Lieutenant Werner Conn was -admitted into evidence (_R 827, Pros. Ex. 122_). This statement reads in -pertinent part and in translation as follows: - - “My name is Professor Dr. Claus Schilling. I have already worked - on tropical diseases for 45 years. I came to the experimental - station in Dachau in February 1942. I judge that I inoculated - between 900 and 1,000 prisoners. Those were mostly inoculations - for protection. These people, however, were not volunteers. The - inmates whom I gave protective inoculations were not examined by - me but by the current camp doctor. Before the inoculation there - was usually an observation of several days. The last camp doctor - was Dr. Hintermayer. As well as I can remember, in 3 years there - were 49 patients who died outside the malaria station. The - patients were always released by me as cured only after 1 year. - - “As remedy I used quinine, atabrine, and neosalvarsan. I know - for sure of six cases where I used pyramidon tablets to hold - down the fever (_Pros. Ex. 122_).” - - * * * * * - -_V. Evidence for the Defense._ - - * * * * * - -15. _Doctor Claus Karl Schilling_ - -The accused Doctor Schilling elected to testify and made the following -unsworn statement: He was 74 years old, married, had one son, and was a -physician. He had specialized in tropical diseases, particularly -malaria, since 1898 (_R 1490, 1500_). Dr. Schilling studied under -Professor Koch of Berlin, and graduated from Munich as a physician in -1894 (_R 1894_). He did research work in Africa on malaria, sleeping -sickness, and tsetse fly diseases (_R 1497, 1498_). Dr. Schilling worked -for the Rockefeller Foundation in Berlin, receiving a grant in 1911 for -the study of various diseases and for a trip to Rome (_R 1499, 1500, -Def. Ex. 19_).[36] In December 1941 in Italy Dr. Schilling met Dr. -Conti, the Reich physician leader, who invited him to see Himmler (_R -1500, 1501, 1508_). Schilling went to Himmler who gave him the order to -continue his studies at Dachau (_R 1502_). Schilling had selected Dachau -because it was near his birthplace (_R 1568-1569_). The question of -using prisoners for experiments was not discussed (_R 1502_). In January -1942, Schilling went to Dachau (_R 1502_). Schilling only accepted this -commission at Dachau because the League of Nations, of which he was a -member, told him of the importance of curing the seventeen million known -cases of malaria. He believed it was his duty to humanity (_R 1540_). He -never became a member of the SS or the Nazi Party (_R 1503_). He was a -“free, independent, research man.” (_R 1568._) - -Dr. Schilling infected thousands of prisoners with malaria “Benign -Tertian” which is not fatal (_R 1503_). The purpose for this was to find -a vaccination against malaria and today there is no vaccination against -malaria except the one discovered by Schilling (_R 1503_). Dr. Schilling -used mosquitoes and blood transfusions to infect the patients and -received patients already infected (_R 1503, 1504_). The patients were -divided into groups and were constantly watched, one group for the -purpose of keeping up the strain and another for immunization purposes -(_R 1505-1506_). The latter were injected repeatedly to step up their -immunity (_R 1506_). Schilling re-infected about 400 to 500 patients and -used quinine, atabrine, and neosalvarsan, and a dye No. 2516 which made -the patients immune; to prove this he had to test by infecting them -again (_R 1507_). - -Dr. Schilling could not work with animals because they are not receptive -to malaria and men are used throughout the world (_R 1507_). He assumed -that Admiral Stipp and Mark Boyd, two malaria authorities, used humans -in their experiments (_R 1508_). Infected malaria has been used to cure -paralysis (_R 1508_). - -Only about four or five of the patients refused to be immunized, but -they consented after Schilling explained the importance of the work (_R -1509_). The selections of the patients were made as follows: Berlin -allowed him thirty patients a month and he would requisition them -through the camp physician from the commandant who contacted the labor -leader (_R 1510_). The latter selected healthy prisoners and Schilling’s -assistants chose the final names and sent them to Berlin, where the -selection was approved (_R 1509, 1510_). These patients were carefully -inspected and could not be refused by Schilling by order of Himmler (_R -1511_). - -The doses of neosalvarsan were 1.54 grams and at no time failed (_R -1512_). He used pyramidon to lower the body temperature although the -drug has a bad effect on the blood corpuscles (_R 1513, 1514_). He used -this drug only in 15 cases and found that two grams were not harmful. -This was important so the body could react without fever (_R 1515_). -Nobody died from pyramidon (_R 1515_). Malaria has been used to cure -syphilis and neosalvarsan can destroy parasites in a fever (_R 1515_). - -Dr. Schilling never dealt with Dr. Blaha on any autopsies involving -neosalvarsan poisoning. Discharged patients were told to report back if -they felt sick (_R 1516_). Periodic checks were made of them and any -patient was received back if there was sign of relapse (_R 1517_). If -Schilling was asked to resume his work, he would do so only on -volunteers (_R 1518_). - -Dr. Schilling was withdrawn as a witness, at this point, but resumed the -stand later and testified as follows: In death through neosalvarsan all -organs are affected (_R 1536_). Blood cells may die, but nothing like -this happened in his cases (_R 1536, 1537_). It is impossible to -determine death by malaria by a mere autopsy without a microscope, -especially where there may be other complications (_R 1537_). Pyramidon -is rarely the cause of death (_R 1537_). - -Out of the 100 people infected by Dr. Schilling with malaria, not a -single one of them died of uncomplicated malaria (_R 1538_). - -Weight of the patients during experiments increased. Additional food was -given and people suffering from contagious disease would be isolated (_R -1539_). Dr. Schilling never stated the wrong cause of death (_R 1539_). - -Dr. Schilling stated he couldn’t experiment on himself because he had -had malaria in 1933 and men like him cannot be reinfected in most cases -although malaria is a recurring disease (_R 1541_). If there is chronic -malaria, the heart muscles will suffer as in all chronic diseases (_R -1543_). Malaria will increase the watery substance in the blood and the -brain will suffer under chronic malaria (_R 1544_). Chronic malaria will -weaken the body to make it susceptible to other diseases and one may die -of another disease while having malaria (_R 1546_). Schilling had SS -doctors helping him and examined all patients personally and supervised -the records (_R 1546_). Schilling recognized Prosecution Exhibit 131 -which stated that 19 cases were treated with pyramidon, three of whom -died (_R 1547_). He declared these patients were suffering from typhus -and were removed from the ward (_R 1547, 1548_). - -Although there was a typhus epidemic in November 1944 and he knew that -people were dying, he continued his experiments (_R 1550_). Everyone who -was inoculated remained at the station (_R 1550_). One patient was -injected three times and later died of typhus (_R 1551_). He was given -neosalvarsan, atabrine, and quinine. Pyramidon doses of three grams per -day for five successive days were given. Dr. Blaha did not inform -Schilling of the deaths due to pyramidon poisoning. If Schilling had -been notified he would have stopped the experiment. An Italian named -Calveroni was infected with blood and might have gotten typhus (_R -1556_). - -If a man is suffering from malnutrition, a big dose of neosalvarsan is -not advisable (_R 1557_). If it would save his life, Schilling would -give it to him (_R 1557_). It depended on the physical condition of the -man and of what he was suffering; yet, Schilling gave the drug to Father -Wicki who only weighed 50 kilos (_R 1558_), but Schilling says that -Wicki was not a severe case (_R 1559_). Schilling gave 3 grams of -neosalvarsan in 5 days, which was the largest dose he ever gave over -that period of time. He does not remember giving drugs to sufferers of -dysentery (_R 1562_). - -Schilling did not remember specific cases where he did not use caution -(_R 1566, 1567_). He recalled the priest Stachowski who died, but -doesn’t remember he died from neosalvarsan (_R 1567, 1568_). - -Dr. Schilling was not under the control of the SS (_R 1568_). He heard -rumors about beatings, but did not concern himself with “things that -were not my business” (_R 1569_). All his records had been burned (_R -1570_). Schilling denied all accusations against him other than what he -admitted as part of his duty (_R 1572, 1573_). He declared that his work -was unfinished and that the court should do what it could to help him -finish his experiments for the benefit of science and to rehabilitate -himself (_R 1574_). - -Mrs. Hubner, who knew Professor Schilling for 30 years, stated that she -often saw him in Italy and in Germany and has known him to be of good -reputation and of good veracity (_R 1519, 1520, 1521_). He told her his -only aim was to help cure malaria (_R 1522_). She believed his -intentions at Dachau were good (_R 1523_). - -Frau Durck, the wife of a university professor of anatomical pathology -who was interested in malaria research, knew Professor Schilling since -1924 (_R 1525, 1526_). Schilling was always regarded in his field as a -serious scientist (_R 1527_). She knew what he was doing at Dachau but -her husband would not have done it (_R 1527_). - -Dr. Eisenberger, a lawyer for 52 years, knew Dr. Schilling for 30 years -(_R 1527_). He considered Schilling highly respectable and reliable, and -said Schilling was seeking to benefit science and would never do -anything wrong (_R 1528_). - -Heinrich Stoehr, a male nurse at Dachau, testified it was known that -Schilling worked on orders from Himmler (_R 1608, 1609_). The camp -physician’s and Schilling’s assistants examined the patients prior to -experimentation (_R 1609_). Dr. Brachtel, an SS doctor and assistant to -Schilling, also performed atabrine experiments (_R 1610_). If a patient -had a relapse from malaria, he was treated by Dr. Schilling (_R 1611, -1612_). Others were given quinine by some of the hospital staff (_R -1611, 1612_). - -Max Kronenfelder worked in the malaria station under Schilling from -February 1941 to June 1943 (_R 1614_). He knew about a Dr. Brachtel, who -also made private experiments on malaria without the knowledge of Dr. -Schilling (_R 1615_). Kronenfelder took blood smears and performed minor -details such as cleaning up (_R 1616_). Brachtel experimented with -patients who had tuberculosis, helped by a man named Adam (_R 1617_). -Adam was often in the morgue with Dr. Blaha (_R 1618_). - -Father Rupieper had been subjected to the malaria experiment in August -1942 (_R 921_). Other priests who were also subjected were Peter Bower, -Gustav Spitzick, Amon Burckhardt, Fritz Keller, and Kasinemer Gasimer -Rikofsky (_R 921_). - - * * * * * - - VI. Prosecution Rebuttal Evidence. - _Common Design._ - - * * * * * - -15. _Dr. Claus Karl Schilling._ When one of Dr. Schilling’s patients -died there were orders to report that fact to the malaria station even -though the man had died in another section of the hospital (_R 1712_). -Toward the end of 1942 Professor Schilling was personally present at the -autopsy of a man who died of neosalvarsan and he requested the brain, -liver, kidneys, spleen, and a piece of stomach (_R 1712, 1731_). In that -case Dr. Schilling dictated part of the findings with respect to the -cause of death (_R 1712_). When the first three patients died from -pyramidon in February 1945, a member from the malaria station and Dr. -Hintermayer were present (_R 1713, 1723, 1731_). Dr. Blaha stated that -in his experience as a physician the average patient could receive 3.3 -pyramidon a day, and that the largest dose would be 2 grams per day, but -that of course assumed that the individual was healthy and strong (_R -1713_). In Dr. Blaha’s judgment, the prison inmates could not be given -more than 1½ to 2 grams for a few days (_R 1714_). If these people were -to receive 3 grams per day for three successive days, signs of poisoning -would be revealed (_R 1714_). - -Dr. Blaha stated that an autopsy revealed that death from pyramidon was -the result of sudden suffocation which was not true in the case of -typhus (_R 1725_). Death from typhus could be determined by certain -indicia without a microscope (_R 1725_). - -Dr. Blaha explained that the ordinary mydol tablet contained 3 pyramidon -and that it is sold over the open counter (_R 1722_). If taken in -moderate doses it will not have any ill effects (_R 1722_). - -A leaflet of I. G. Farben, Indiana, which held the neosalvarsan -contained the following instructions: “In between the individual -infections, spaces of time should be permitted to elapse, from 3 to 7 -days.” (_Pros. Ex. 134_) These were instructions for syphilis (_R -1564_). In paragraph five in the leaflet it read in part, “such caution -in the use of neosalvarsan is recommended for undernourished and severe -anaemic patients, tuberculosis, diseases of the lungs, heart, kidneys, -liver, and intestines.” (_R 1564, 1565._) - - * * * * * - -X. Merits and Defense. - - * * * * * - -15. _Dr. Claus Karl Schilling._ Dr. Schilling, at the call of Himmler, -began conducting his malaria experiments at Dachau in February 1942. He -continued these experiments until liberation of the camp. It was -undisputed that the inmates whom Dr. Schilling used in his work were not -volunteers. Dr. Schilling’s research was performed for the purpose of -determining immunization for and treatment of malaria. His requests for -inmates were made about every month. These lists were prepared in the -camp physician’s office and then sent to the camp commander and labor -office. About 1,200 selectees were thus chosen for subjection. Many of -them were priests. The number of people who died from the malaria or -from the drugs such as pyramidon or neosalvarsan is not known. Certainly -some died. It is reasonable to infer that the deaths of many of the -inmates from tuberculosis, dysentery, typhus, and other diseases were -caused in part by the fact that those people had been subjected to -malaria. Although Dr. Schilling’s motive may have been simply and purely -a scientific one, his activities exemplified the Nazi scheme which -existed at Dachau. The part he played in that scheme is clear. - - * * * * * - -XIV. Sentences. - - * * * * * - -In many respects the accused Schilling was the most reprehensible. He -voluntarily came to Dachau fully cognizant of the nature of the work he -intended to perform. Being the educated and learned person that he was, -Schilling undoubtedly must have realized the manner in which his work -suited the needs of the Nazis. Although his personal motives may have -stemmed from his desire to aid humanity, he permitted himself to utilize -Nazi methods in contrast to other eminent German artists and scientists -who either fled or refused to make themselves a part of the Nazi system. -It is believed that the sentence of the Court, which was aware of -Schilling’s position in the scientific world, should be approved. - - * * * * * - -XVI. Actions. - -A form of action designed to carry the foregoing recommendations into -effect, should they meet with your approval, is submitted herewith. - - [Signature] Charles E. Cheever - [Typed] CHARLES E. CHEEVER - Colonel, JAGD, - Staff Judge Advocate. - - MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURT ORDER ON REVIEW - - Order No. 3. - -Whereas Martin Gottfried Weiss, Friedrich Wilhelm Ruppert, et al., were -convicted of the offenses of Violations of Laws and usages of war in -that they acted in pursuance of a common design, did encourage, aid, -abet, and participate in the subjection of Allied nationals and -prisoners of war to cruelties and mistreatments at Dachau concentration -camp and its subcamps by the General Military Court appointed pursuant -to paragraph 3, SO 304, Hq., 2 November 1945, at Dachau, Germany and -each accused was sentenced to death by hanging except four: Peter Betz -who was sentenced to life imprisonment, Hugo Alfred Erwin Lausterer who -was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years, Albin Gretsch -who was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years, and Johann -Schoepp who was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years by -judgment dated the 14th day of December 1945, and - -Whereas the case has now come before me by way of review and after due -consideration and in exercise of the powers conferred upon me, I hereby -order: - - That the findings and the sentence in the cases of Weiss, - Ruppert, Jarolin, Trenkle, Niedermeyer, Seuss, Eichberger, - Wagner, Kick, Hintermayer, Witteler, Eichelsdorfer, Foerschner, - Schilling, Knoll, Boettger, Betz, Endres, Kiern, Rewitz, Welter, - Suttrop, Tempel, Lausterer, Becher, Kramer, Filleboeck, - Schoettl, Gretsch, Kirsch, Langleist, Lippmann, Degelow, Moll, - Schulz, and Wetzel be upheld. - - That the sentence imposed in the case of Eisele be reduced to - confinement at hard labor for life. - - That the sentence imposed in the case of Puhr be reduced to - confinement at hard labor for 20 years. - - That the sentence imposed in the case of Mahl be reduced to - confinement at hard labor for 10 years. - - That the sentence imposed in the case of Schoepp be reduced to - confinement at hard labor for 5 years, - -and for so doing this shall be sufficient warrant. - -Dated this 24th day of January 1946. - - [Signed] L. K. TRUSCOTT, JR., - Lieutenant General, U.S.A. - Commanding. - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 11 - ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 27 - - EXTRACTS FROM REPORT OF PROFESSOR DR. E. GILDEMEISTER CONCERNING THE - ACTIVITIES OF THE ROBERT KOCH INSTITUTE—REICH INSTITUTE FOR THE FIGHT - AGAINST INFECTIOUS DISEASES - - * * * * * - -2. Malaria Research. - -_a. Cultures of strains._ The strain “Greece” of plasmodium vivax was -bred in the department by Miss Lange till 31 December 1942, in the 30th -continuous passage of man-mosquito-man. The number of infected patients -up to that date was 379. The main work concerned the malaria treatment -of paralytics and schizophrenics. In addition, however, there were a few -therapeutic experiments with other diseases, in cases where the clinics -concerned required mosquito bite infections in order to obtain a -reliable malaria free from lues. The number of clinics and hospitals -obtaining part or all their requirements of therapeutical malaria -infection from the department rose to 11. In addition to the strain -“Greece”, various other malaria strains were taken into the mosquito -passage for comparative experiments; they were, however, not permanently -maintained. This considerable amount of incoming clinical material was -continuously collected and sorted although it has not yet been used. - -In the course of the research two more laboratory infections occurred -due to mosquito bites. - -The following examinations by Dr. Hoering, Professor Rose, and Dr. Emmel -were made possible by the maintenance of the anopheles colony and the -malaria breed. - -_b. Parasite straining._ Dr. Hoering continued her work on the -improvement of the microscopic presentation of malaria parasites. -Despite certain improvements of the microscopic picture it was not -possible to develop a procedure easily applicable in practice and -superior to the established methods. - -_c. Artificial feeding and artificial infection of anopheles._ Dr. -Hoering continued to develop the methods of artificial blood feeding of -anopheles, evolved by Dr. Olzscha. In this artificial feeding the -anopheles would not take citrated blood even though sugar had been -added. Blood haemolized with water and saturated with sugar was taken, -as well as liquid blood, although the addition of sugar was preferred. -Artificial feeding of blood is biologically not altogether equal to -natural feeding. The duration of life was almost the same with -artificial feeding as with the normal feeding of the animal. However, -females which were merely artificially fed, only laid eggs in -exceptional cases. - -It is known that with anopheles which suck blood from the animal, the -blood enters the duodenum without previously entering the sucking -stomach, while other nutritious matter first reaches the sucking and -reserve stomachs. It was previously assumed that the nature of the food, -especially the number of cells, acted as indicative irritation. Dr. -Hoering’s experiments with artificial blood nutrition showed this -assumption to be wrong. Sweetened as well as unsweetened blood, which is -used for artificial feeding, first enters into the reserve stomachs in -the same way as a sugar solution. Further experiments proved that the -piercing of a membrane also causes no indicative irritation. - -After the method of the artificial feeding with blood had been -developed, Dr. Hoering carried out experiments with the feeding of -infected blood containing malaria. Finally, it was possible to infect -anopheles by artificial feeding of blood, so that normally developed -sporozoites grew inside them. This is the first time that such an -experiment was successfully carried through. - -_d. Conservation of malaria parasites._ Professor Rose had the -experiments continued concerning the conservation of malaria parasites -in liquids suitable for the conservation of blood. Even after 150 days -malaria parasites could be demonstrated morphologically in individual -cases. However, attempt at infection with such blood did not succeed. -The continuation and repetition of these experiments are planned. - -The as yet unknown possibility of keeping malaria parasites alive in -vitro for such long periods raises the problem of whether malaria -parasites may become also dormant in human beings. The fact that an -infection could be achieved in human beings with 90-day-old parasites -proves that these preserved parasites did not lose their development and -multiplying properties. The assumption of such dormant forms in the -human being would offer new explanations for malaria relapses after long -intervals of recovery. The department is engaged in morphologically -characterizing the dormant forms observed in a test tube and in -searching for the existence of such forms in clinical malaria cases. - -_e. The appearance of anopheles in the Warthegau._ Dr. Olzscha -investigated the appearance of anopheles in 221 hamlets, villages, and -scattered settlements of the Warthegau. Anopheles were found practically -everywhere. The investigation of 600 individual clusters proved beyond -doubt that except in a few cases where a definite determination was not -possible, they belonged to the genus of messaeae of anopheles -maculipennis. Only in one case were A. m. artroparvus found. - - * * * * * - -_h. Malaria treatment._ Professor Rose in cooperation with -Obermedizinalrat Dr. Sagel, director of the Country Mental Institution -in Arnsdorf-Saxony, and Dr. Mertens, Dr. Koenig, and Dr. Peters, -Leverkusen, tested the efficacy of new synthetic remedies against -mosquito sting malaria. The best method of administering a new and -proved preparation was developed. - - * * * * * - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 47 - ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 35 - - AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR DR. HANS LUXENBURGER, 24 MARCH 1947, CONCERNING - ROSE’S INTEREST IN THERAPEUTICAL MALARIA TREATMENTS - -I, Professor Dr. med. Hans Otto Luxenburger, born on 12 June 1894 in -Schweinfurt, residing in Munich, 22 Liebigstrasse 35/II, have been -informed that I will be liable to punishment if I make a false -affidavit. I declare under oath that my statement is true and was made -in order to be submitted in evidence to Military Tribunal No. 1 at the -Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany. - -Being a psychiatrist myself, I took an interest in Professor Rose’s -malaria research insofar as we talked now and again about Rose’s -progress and the results of his research. For me as a psychiatrist it -was always noteworthy that Rose regarded cooperation with the -psychiatrists of hospitals for the insane by no means only from the -point of view of his interest in malaria research. On the contrary, he -always showed definite interest in the related psychiatric-therapeutic -questions. Contrary to the opinion formerly advocated by Wagner-Jauregg, -he hoped to attain more thorough and permanent success in treatment by -infection with mosquitoes as advocated by him (Rose) instead of the -formerly customary blood transfusion, because in his opinion endothelia -infection was also attained thereby. - -He also was particularly interested in the question of finding a benign -tropical strain and employing it in treatment, in order to carry out -thorough and long fever treatments on cases of paralysis relapse; this -is generally unsuccessful when employing the usual tertiana strains in -cases of relapse. - -He was especially interested in the possibility of therapeutic influence -upon schizophrenia. In the well-known psychiatrist Dr. Sagel, he had a -co-worker who advocated the opinion that schizophrenia, apart from its -hereditary basis, must be caused by an additional external impairment, -and he suspected that these causes lay in infectious diseases, -especially rheumatic infections. Working from this assumption, he hoped -for success with this disease similar to that with paralysis. This idea -was not a new one. Similar experiments were conducted earlier. Rose was -especially encouraged in this work by some impressive isolated successes -in quite hopeless cases of schizophrenia. I can recall his joy as he -told me, apart from other, cases, of a woman who was about to be -divorced, after the head of the institution had declared her condition, -which had existed for more than 3 years, to be incurable. In this case -Rose’s treatment, according to his report, not only resulted in -completely restoring the sick woman’s health but also led to her return -to her family and the reestablishment of the marriage. - -Munich, 24 March 1947 - - [Signed] PROF. DR. HANS LUXENBURGER - -The above signature of Professor Dr. med. Hans Otto Luxenburger, -residing in Munich, 22 Liebigstrasse 35/II, given before me, Notary, -Theobald Petri, Administrator, is herewith certified and attested. - -Munich, 24 March 1947. - - [Signed] _Petri_, Notary - (Theobald Petri), Notary - Administrator of the Notary’s Office, Munich - XVII -Seal - -I certify that the above document is a true and correct copy. Nuernberg, -10 April 1947. - - [Signature] Dr. HANS FRITZ - (Dr. Hans Fritz) - Defense Counsel - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 50 - ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 49 - - EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR DR. ERNST GEORG - NAUCK, M. D., HAMBURG 4, BERNHARD-NOCHT-INSTITUTE FOR - NAUTICAL AND TROPICAL DISEASES - - * * * * * - -Experimental infections of human beings with malaria tertiana (mild -tertian malaria) have proved to be harmless and have very frequently -been carried out on voluntary experimental subjects. It is well known -that artificial infection with tertiana is also carried out as a cure -against other diseases (paralysis, rabies). If the artificial infection -is carried out carefully and under medical supervision, death or -permanent damage to health should not occur. If the experiment with -malaria tertiana, as carried out by Claus Schilling, was carried out -with the same care, no danger to the experimental persons should have -been entailed. Since Claus Schilling was a prominent scientist of -international fame, it must be assumed that he carried out his -investigations with the intention or the knowledge not to harm human -life. This we find confirmed in the following: - -1. Stitt’s diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment of Tropical Diseases, by -Richard P. Strong, 7th edition, London, H. K. Lewis & Co., Ltd., 1945, -page 59: - - “The question of the occurrence of immunity in malaria has been - extensively studied in recent years, not only from the - epidemiologic standpoint but from experimental inoculations - which have been carried on in both men and animals. However, in - interpreting the results of the inoculations in man which have - been carried out by direct injection of blood containing - schizonts or by the injection of sporozoites from mosquitoes or - by the bites of infected mosquitoes, many factors regarding the - virulence or number of the parasites inoculated, the species and - conditions of infectivity of the mosquitoes, the temperature at - which they have been kept, and other factors, must be taken into - consideration in drawing conclusions with regard to the - susceptibility of individuals to infection. Much of the work is - still in the experimental stage, though some definite progress - has recently been made.” - - * * * * * - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS - AUGUST H. VIEWEG[37] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. HARDY: While you were an inmate at the concentration camp, did you -ever undergo any medical experiments? - -WITNESS VIEWEG: I was used for malaria experiments by Professor -Dachfinney at the Dachau concentration camp. - -Q. How many times were you subjected to the malaria experiments by Dr. -Schilling? - -A. On five occasions I received injections of 5 cubic centimeters of -highly infectious malaria blood. - -Q. Would you kindly tell the Tribunal what effect these experiments had -on you; that is, did you have high fever, serious illness, and so forth? - -A. Quite often I ran a very high temperature. I got into a very -exhausted condition, and after the injection I received large doses of -medical drugs, quinine, ephedrine, and many others. I was in bed for -weeks, and after one treatment there were 20 to 26 occasions in the -course of the years 1943, 1944, 1945, and 1946, when I had malaria -attacks, so that for a long time I was unable to work. - -Q. At the present time, do you have recurrences of this malaria fever? - -A. This last year I was in the hospital from August 1st to 15th, again -with malaria attacks. - -Q. How many recurrences of malaria have you endured since you were -experimented on by Dr. Schilling? - -A. After my treatments in the experimental station had been concluded I -stayed with Dr. Schilling, and there were 20 occasions when I was -treated for recurrences. - -Q. Are you completely cured now, Witness? - -A. No. - -Q. After you had undergone the various experiments at the hands of Dr. -Schilling, did you then become a worker in Dr. Schilling’s laboratory? - -A. After my first so-called immunization treatment had been concluded, -the chief medical officer of that department sent me over to Dr. -Schilling’s department for laboratory duties. - -Q. On what date did you assume those duties? - -A. I am afraid I can’t tell you that exactly, but it must have been on -or about August 1942. - -Q. What were your duties in Dr. Schilling’s experimental station? - -A. In Dr. Schilling’s department I was in charge of animals. In other -words, I cultivated animals, white mice, and canaries; in fact, I was in -charge of that department. - -Q. Did you have any other or additional duties, such as file clerk or -typist, Witness? - -A. For a certain period, I substituted for the clerk and I was in direct -contact with Dr. Schilling on various occasions. I had a certain amount -of business with the chemistry department, purchases from Dachau, and I -was also in charge of the detachment which had to search the water near -Dachau for anopheles mosquitoes. - -Q. While with Dr. Schilling, did you have the opportunity to read any of -Dr. Schilling’s correspondence? - -A. I had frequent occasions to see the reports which Dr. Schilling sent -in every 3 months, and sometimes I saw the answers which Dr. Schilling -received from Berlin, as well as from some other chemical manufacturers. - -Q. Witness, can you recall to whom those reports were sent, in Berlin? - -A. These quarterly reports, which Dr. Schilling used to prepare, went to -the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, Reich Medical Officer. - -Q. You have referred to the fact, today, that you saw some of the -answers Dr. Schilling received from Berlin; who was the originator of -those letters that Dr. Schilling received from Berlin? - -A. As far as I can recollect, these replies were sent to Professor -Schilling by Dr. Grawitz. - -Q. Do you know where Dr. Schilling received his material to be used in -this research, that is, infected blood for the malaria experiments, fly -eggs, and so forth? - -A. I can remember that Dr. Schilling received malaria fly eggs, -so-called eggs from which he bred other flies, from Duesseldorf; they -came from an insane asylum, but I can’t remember the name, and some from -the Medical Institute at Rome that used to receive eggs. In fact, his -material used to come from Berlin. According to my memory, it came from -Professor Rose, and also from Athens; but I am afraid I cannot recollect -the name there. - -Q. Do you know whether Professor Rose had any correspondence with Dr. -Schilling? - -A. I remember that in connection with previous breeding attempts we were -not too successful, and subsequently I saw a number of letters given to -a stenographer by Dr. Schilling. They were addressed to Professor Rose. -He was making certain explanations in them regarding certain types of -insects, in connection with which my name was used. I am certain it went -to Berlin and I am certain that answers were received on numerous -occasions. - -Q. Did Dr. Schilling ever send any reports of these experiments to -Professor Rose, to your knowledge? - -A. Whether he sent reports about malaria patients, I don’t know. At any -rate, as far as these fly-breeding experiments are concerned, he had -sent reports. I know that for certain. - - * * * * * - -Q. Witness, we will go back to the malaria experiments for the moment. -What was the nationality of the people used for the malaria experiments, -what type of people were they? - -A. The biggest proportion, approximately two hundred patients, used for -the malaria experiments were Germans, a large proportion were Polish -priests, and the rest were partly Russians, some Yugoslavs, and some -Poles. - -Q. Were any prisoners of war used in these experiments? - -A. Of the Russians, many were prisoners of war. - -Q. What was the total number of people used in these malaria experiments -from your knowledge? - -A. According to my knowledge, 1,084 experimental subjects were used for -the malaria experiments. - -Q. Will you kindly tell us, Witness, how many of these subjects used in -the malaria experiments died as a result of the experiments? - -A. According to my knowledge seven or eight died at the malaria station, -either directly or because of the treatment with drugs. I can describe -the details if you like. The first case was an Austrian who afterwards -became ill because of these malaria experiments. The assistant at that -time, Dr. Brachtel, who was at the same time the deputy physician at the -hospital, made a liver puncture and the patient bled to death. - -Q. Witness, then you state from your knowledge that seven or eight died -from the experiments. Of that number who died, did the deaths occur in -the malaria station itself? - -A. This was the number of dead who were not transferred by us to another -department, but who died at our station or a few hours after they had -been transferred to another station. - -Q. Have you any knowledge as to what happened to some of the other -patients who were transferred to some other station after they were -experimented on? That is, did some others die after they were -experimented on? - -A. Of our patients, during the years after they came to us for -observation, I can recollect that another 60 patients died. I cannot say -for certain they died of malaria or other results of the experiments. - - * * * * * - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - -DR. FRITZ: I have a few questions to ask the witness. Witness, on Friday -you seemed to be fairly well acquainted with certain malaria questions, -obviously on the basis of knowledge gained with Professor Schilling. I -would now like to ask you the following questions concerning some very -important details: During your examination by the prosecuting counsel -you spoke of certain regrettable incidents. A number of deaths had -occurred during the course of the malaria experiments conducted by -Professor Schilling. At the time you mentioned about seven cases, but -you only described one in detail. The patient had yellow fever in -addition to malaria and then bled to death because the liver was -punctured. I now ask you to tell me something about the reasons for the -other six deaths. - -WITNESS VIEWEG: The other six patients were the so-called “medicament -death” cases. One patient died as a result of the salvarsan drug. The -other one died as a result of the so-called “periphery” experiment, and -the last four died as the result of a pyramidon experiment. - -Q. Were the patients who, after being released from the station of -Schilling, suffered relapses sent back to Professor Schilling’s station? - -A. If they reported back to us, they were taken back to the station. - -Q. In that case did any patients die in Professor Schilling’s department -who later on had malaria or relapses? - -A. Patients who were in danger of death were transferred to another -station. - -Q. Do you remember whether malaria tertiana is a fatal illness? - -A. As far as I know nobody with us died of malaria tertiana. The deaths -were a result of the secondary diseases which appeared because of the -drugs used in the malaria experiments. - -Q. Did Professor Schilling say anything to you about these fatal cases -which were under his responsibility and observation, and if so, what? - -A. The first two cases, the patient who died as a result of the -punctured liver and the one who died because of the salvarsan injection, -Dr. Schilling regretted very deeply. He tried to prevent such happenings -as much as possible. In the last four cases, concerning the pyramidon -experiment, he was told that the patients were in a very bad condition. -Nevertheless, he insisted that they continue to receive the pyramidon -drugs—I think it was 3 grams per day—and when these patients arrived -at the delirium stage, they were transferred from our ward shortly -before their death. - -Q. And now something else. On Friday you testified that Dachau received -anopheles from Dr. Rose’s institute and that there was an exchange of -correspondence about the difficulties you had in breeding these eggs. Do -you know where Dr. Rose worked, in which institute? - -A. I think these letters were addressed to the Robert Koch Institute in -Berlin. - -Q. Do you know from this correspondence whether these replies came from -Dr. Rose personally or from his assistant? - -A. That I cannot state from memory. I recall one reply from a lady who -was in charge of the breeding of these eggs in Berlin. - -Q. That was probably an assistant who had worked with Rose for many -years? - -A. Yes, but I think Professor Schilling first turned to Professor Rose, -and probably the replies primarily came from Professor Rose. - -Q. Can you remember the name of the lady? - -A. No. - -Q. Do you know with whom Dr. Schilling had dealings and correspondence -in addition to Dr. Grawitz and Dr. Rose? - -A. I cannot remember. I know that he corresponded with an institution in -Duesseldorf called Graefenrad or something like that, and he requested -the breeding of these eggs there, and they sent us flies, live flies. - -Q. Did you have the name “Rose” in mind, or did you only recall his name -when you were first examined? - -A. No. The name “Rose” remained in my recollection because I, myself, -was infected with the malaria called “Rose”. He had these various -immunization groups, the so-called malaria stock, which had various -different names, and I was with a group which was infected with a -so-called Rose Culture. - -Q. You have testified before that you received eggs from Rome. You could -not however remember the name. Was it perhaps Professor Vissireli, Dr. -Rosni, or Dr. Raphaeli? - -A. I think it was Vissireli. - -Q. Did you also receive these eggs from Hamburg? - -A. We received no eggs from the Tropical Institute in Hamburg, but -Professor Schilling corresponded with that Institute. - -Q. Can you remember in which year you received these eggs from the -Robert Koch Institute, or rather from Professor Rose? - -A. It was in the summer of 1942. - -Q. You have told us about a number of these flies which you had to breed -in the vicinity of Dachau. Were you present? - -A. There was one special detachment for this purpose, including an SS -man and one or two inmates. That was in the swamps surrounding Dachau -during the summer months. Various water tests were made, and according -to the degree of heat of the swamps, Dr. Schilling ordered the waters to -be infected with a mixture of pig food. This special detachment went -around the cellars of the Dachau camp during the winter months and -worked on that matter. Our laboratories then examined these anopheles -flies, and used them for breeding purposes. - -Q. Can you state anything about the quantities caught? - -A. It varied in the winter—sometimes they brought 10, sometimes 30 to -50, and sometimes 60. - -Q. Did your department in Dachau deliver any such eggs to other -departments? - -A. We delivered such eggs on one occasion, but I cannot remember where. - -Q. I now come to the question of malaria culture. From where did -Professor Schilling receive his malaria cultures? - -A. I cannot say exactly. I know that he received malaria cultures from -Essen and from Berlin. But this was in February 1942, when I had not yet -arrived at the ward. I remember we had 12 different malaria cultures. I -know that Professor Schilling used one, and another man used one—I -think his name was Flugg—in order to give one such culture the name of -“Flugg.” - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[38] - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: Let’s go back to the malaria experiments. What contact did -you have with Schilling in 1941? - -DEFENDANT ROSE: During my direct examination I testified that in 1941 I -saw reports about Schilling’s malaria work in Italy on behalf of the -Italian Government and with the support of the Reich Ministry of the -Interior; then, either at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942, I -gave an opinion, a written opinion, on an application which Professor -Schilling had sent to State Secretary Conti, or rather to the Reich -Ministry of the Interior. Then I saw Professor Schilling personally in -1941. I am not certain whether he was in Germany again at that time, but -I can’t deny it with certainty under oath, because after all that was 6 -years ago. - -Q. Did you supply him with any material while he was working in Italy? - -A. No, nothing. - -Q. Who was Fraeulein von Falkenberg? - -A. You mean Fraeulein von Falkenhayn? - -Q. No, I mean Fraeulein von Falkenberg. - -A. I don’t know any Fraeulein von Falkenberg. - -Q. You are sure you didn’t supply Schilling with any material in 1941? - -A. I cannot remember it. It might have been done by my department -without my knowledge. Then, of course, I would take the responsibility -for it, but I did not learn of it until now. My assistants did not tell -me anything about it, if it happened. If you can prove it happened, I -shall, of course, assume responsibility for it, even if it was done -without my knowledge. - -Q. Well, it is not terribly important, but let us let you have a look at -Document NO-1756. In the meantime, when did this incident occur about -your giving material to Schilling, after he had set up his institute at -Dachau? - -A. I beg your pardon, I didn’t understand your question. - -Q. When did you give Schilling material, after he had gone to Dachau? - -A. I cannot give any information about that myself. I have to depend on -the testimony of my assistant, von Falkenhayn, and my secretary, Block. -My secretary, Block, testified here that it was the end of 1941, but I -would assume that she is mistaken about that, since Fraeulein von -Falkenhayn testified that this material was given in the year 1942. I -think the latter is more likely. - -Q. Document NO-1756 will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 486 for -identification. - -Q. Isn’t there a Fraeulein von Falkenberg mentioned in this letter of -yours to Schilling, dated 3 February 1941? - -A. No. In the German copy of the document which you showed to me, it -says Fraeulein von Falkenhayn. - -Q. That is a mistake then in the English translation. - -A. Fraeulein von Falkenhayn was an assistant in my department. She had -formerly worked for Professor Schilling. There is an affidavit from her. -Since I have this letter I can give you some information about the -matter. Professor Schilling wanted to have a serological reaction in -malaria, the so-called Henry reaction; that is a reaction which is -carried out for the purpose of malaria diagnosis. As in the antigen -reaction, in this reaction also the spleen of dead persons is used. -Professor Schilling apparently wrote to me to find out whether I, as -head of the tropical medical department, was in a position to obtain a -spleen from a corpse where the patient had died of malaria. I answered -saying that such material would hardly be available in Berlin. Malaria -was very rare in Berlin and consequently deaths from malaria were also -very rare. The only cases of this type occurred in insane asylums, in -the treatment of paralytics. It is well known that the first work of -Wagner-Jauregg shows that in the course of malaria treatment paralysis -deaths occur, just as death occurs following operations, and such -malaria deaths, of course, occurred in Berlin insane asylums. As far as -I can remember the matter, my assistants contacted various pathological -institutes in Berlin and asked that if such an autopsy should occur -there, the spleen should be preserved so that it could be sent to -Professor Schilling. This was what this letter was about. - -Q. Did you ever supply any to him? - -A. As far as I can recall, in the course of several months, one or two -such cases occurred and the material was sent to Schilling, but I cannot -say for certain today. - -Q. Well, you are now qualifying at least the answer you gave to my -earlier question as to whether you gave him any material in 1941; isn’t -that right? - -A. I beg your pardon. I didn’t understand the question. - -Q. I say you now wish to qualify the answer you gave me a few moments -ago, before you saw the letter, to the effect that you had not given him -any material in 1941. You now, after having seen the letter, state you -did in fact give him some. - -A. Yes. I am sorry. My attention was entirely devoted to the question of -the malaria parasite strains and mosquitoes. I did not think of -negotiations between Schilling and the pathological institute in Berlin. - -Q. Let’s go back to what we were discussing. You stated that although -Frau Block said that the malaria eggs were supplied to Schilling in the -latter part of 1941, you think probably it was 1942? - -A. Yes. That is what I said. Perhaps I may correct myself. When you -speak of malaria eggs you mean anopheles eggs probably. There are no -malaria eggs. - -Q. Yes, that is right. - -A. I am inclined to agree that von Falkenhayn and Block think -differently. I think that von Falkenhayn was right and that it was in -1942. - -Q. Did you know anything about this before it was sent? - -A. I cannot remember it. I don’t believe so. As far as I remember I was -informed of it by Fraeulein von Falkenhayn, after I had been given a -letter from Professor Schilling that the mosquitoes were thriving in -Dachau. - -Q. Did you thereafter issue orders that no more material was to be sent -to Schilling; is that right? - -A. I did not issue a precise order. I said that since we ourselves were -using so many mosquitoes I didn’t want any more material to be sent to -Mr. Schilling because I was not convinced of the scientific value of his -work. But Fraeulein von Falkenhayn in her testimony says that there was -further correspondence with Fraeulein Lange. I have not been able to -find this correspondence and I can’t clear up the question completely. I -have to rely fully on my assistant in this respect and I can’t answer -from my own knowledge. In our first conversation on the subject when I -told you that Schilling got anopheles eggs from us, which you didn’t -know at the time, I did not tell you that he got a malaria strain from -my department. I didn’t know that at the time. I learned it only a short -time ago from Fraeulein von Falkenhayn. That was not in the affidavit. -Apparently she was afraid of some objections and sent a letter to that -effect to my lawyer. I am not so timid. I am not afraid to tell you -about it. - -Q. In other words you did supply a Rose strain to Schilling? - -A. No. As I said on direct examination, the Rose strain could not come -from my department because we didn’t have any strain with the name Rose. -Where this strain with the name Rose comes from is a puzzle to me. I -don’t know of any Rose strain in malaria literature. But I don’t think -there is any point in quarreling about this name. The information given -by Fraeulein von Falkenhayn, which I believe fully, that a malaria -strain was sent—that is quite sufficient—no matter whether it is -called Rose or some other name. - -Q. Your witness, Frau Block, testified you had no correspondence with -Schilling in 1942 and 1943, as I recall. Is that right? - -A. That is what Frau Block said. I myself would not have been so -definite in my testimony if you asked me the same question. I would say -I can’t answer that question definitely. I only know one thing, that I -never corresponded with Professor Schilling on the subject of his work. -Whether Schilling and I ever exchanged letters in those years I don’t -know, since I don’t have my files. Concerning any information about such -infrequent correspondence and whether he wrote a certain letter 5 or 6 -years ago, he says, “I would like to look that up in my files.” -Unfortunately I cannot do so but perhaps you would be kind enough, if -you have copies of such a letter, to make it available to me. You have -my files and they are much more easily available to you than to me. For -example, I am trying to find my malaria opinion from the year 1941. That -was in the same filing cabinet from which you got the record of the -typhus meeting on 29 December 1941 in the Ministry of the Interior. - -Q. You overestimate the prosecution, Herr Professor, but we needn’t -dwell on that. Now, is your memory good enough to tell us how long you -continued to furnish Schilling with material for his Dachau experiments? -You say that somewhere along in 1942 you told them not to send any more. -Are you clear about it? - -A. Yes, I think I can remember reliably. - -Q. Well, when did this malaria strain go down? - - * * * * * - -A. I don’t know. Fraeulein von Falkenhayn merely told me that the -malaria strain was given to Schilling. I don’t know when. She didn’t -mention that in her letter to Dr. Fritz. - -Q. Let’s look at Document NO-1752. This will be marked as Prosecution -Exhibit 487 for identification. Suppose you read the letter aloud, -Professor? - -A. “Prof. Claus Schilling - - “Dachau, 4 April 1942 - “3 K, Hospital for Inmates - - “To Prof. Dr. Rose - “Berlin, Fohrerstrasse 2 - “Robert Koch Institute - - “Dear Colleague: - - “I inoculated a person intracutaneously with sporocoides from - the salivary glands of a female anopheles you sent me. For the - second inoculation I do not have the sporocoides material - because I do not possess the Strain Rose in the anopheles yet. - If you could find it possible to send me a few anopheles - infected with Strain Rose during the next few days (in the last - consignment 2 out of 10 mosquitoes were infected), I would be - able to continue this experiment and I would naturally be very - grateful to you for this new support of my work. - - “The mosquito breeding and the experiments are proceeding - satisfactorily; I am working now on six tertiary strains. I - remain with hearty greetings and - - “Heil Hitler! - “Yours truly - “[Signed] CLAUS SCHILLING” - -Q. Schilling apparently thought there was a “Strain Rose.” - -A. Yes. That is indicated by the letter. That clears up the matter. He -must have renamed this strain which came from my department and called -it Rose. That is very unusual. Normally a malariologist would not do -that. - -Q. Are those your initials on the bottom of this letter, “L. g. RO -17/4”? - -A. Yes, that indicates that 13 days after the letter was mailed, 12 days -after it arrived at the Robert Koch Institute, I saw it. There is also -the file note “Settled EVF.” That is Erna von Falkenhayn on 17 April -1942. I find that in spite of my instructions to the department, -Fraeulein von Falkenhayn still sent mosquitoes to her old chief although -she denies it now; but I should like to emphasize that, of course, I am -responsible for what Fraeulein von Falkenhayn did even if she did not -tell me about it. - -Q. Well, you saw the letter of 17 April 1942. Did you reaffirm your -instructions that no more material was to be sent to Schilling? - -A. I cannot tell you now. That is quite possible. It is not even certain -that I was in the Robert Koch Institute when I saw the letter. It is -much more likely that Frau Block brought this letter to my home where -such things were generally settled. And, from the fact that it had been -dealt with 10 days before, you can see that such letters were opened by -my secretary. - -Q. I thought we would be a bit generous with Frau Block and assume she -hadn’t seen the letter since she was so firm in the testimony that you -hadn’t corresponded with Schilling during these years. - -Did you ever send Schilling any atroparvus eggs? - -A. Yes. Those are a type of anopheles eggs which he got from us. As a -type of anopheles I had anopheles eggs maculipenis atroparvus in my -laboratory. - -Q. Suppose I put Document NO-1753 to you. This will be marked as -Prosecution Exhibit 488 for identification. This is another letter from -Schilling. This one is dated a year later—5 July 1943, acknowledging, -“with appreciation the receipt of your letter of 30 June and the -consignment of atroparvus eggs.” - -I would also like to direct your attention, Professor, to the last -paragraph of the letter where it says: “Please give Fraeulein Lange, who -apparently takes care of her breed with greater skill and better success -than the prisoner August, my best thanks for her troubles.” - -Do you remember the Christian name of the witness Vieweg? - -A. No, I am sorry I do not remember the name of this man. - -Q. If you search the record I think you will find his forename was -August. - -Now, Doctor, apparently they completely ignored your orders of the year -previous not to send any more material to Schilling. Apparently you had -a change of heart yourself. Isn’t that right? - -A. I have already stated expressly that my orders not to send any more -material to Schilling meant that we did not have too much material -ourselves. It did not mean that I had any misgivings about the way in -which Schilling was carrying out his work. It is quite possible that -when we again had plenty of mosquito eggs we gave some to Schilling -again. I am in a very difficult position. It is difficult for me to -testify anything from memory. You see here again that this matter was -apparently dealt with by Fraeulein Lange and Schilling himself wrote to -me again. - -Q. Well, I didn’t read it that way, Professor. The first line -acknowledges your letter of June 30th. - -A. Well, then it’s possible that I wrote to Schilling. - -Q. Frau Block suffered from bad memory about your correspondence with -Schilling in 1943 as well as 1942, didn’t she? - -A. Yes, I am rather astonished because one would assume that a secretary -remembers such things better, but it is, of course, possible to make -mistakes if one doesn’t have access to the files. I have told you that I -cannot testify with any certainty to the details of such correspondence -because I had too much correspondence. - -Q. Well, isn’t it possible you supplied material to him in 1944? - -A. I consider that quite impossible. We have the testimony of Fraeulein -von Falkenhayn that the department for fever therapy never gave them any -material and, at that time, I no longer had an office in Berlin. -However, I must again rely on Fraeulein von Falkenhayn’s testimony. I -myself was at Pfaffenrode once a month at the most, and I called up once -or twice over long distance. - -Q. I put in Document NO-1755. This will be marked “Prosecution Exhibit -489” for identification. This is a reply from you to Schilling, dated 27 -July 1943. This letter speaks about shipping eggs to Schilling, doesn’t -it? - -A. Yes, apparently. There must have been plenty of mosquito eggs, so -that we could give up some of them. - -Q. There wasn’t as big a shortage as you thought; is that right? - -DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I ask that the photostat be shown to the -defendant Rose. It is not impossible that it was written by an assistant -and initialed “R.” I know the signature of Professor Rose, and I think -the “R” looks a little different. Perhaps he might be shown the -photostat. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Let the photostat be shown to the witness. - -DEFENDANT ROSE: I must say I do not understand this signature at all. -When I signed a letter I signed my name, but I don’t think it’s very -important. - - * * * * * - ------ - -[34] All “R” references in Document NO-856 are to pages of the Record of -the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al. - -[35] “Pros. Ex.” references in this document are to prosecution exhibits -in the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al. - -[36] “Def. Ex.” references in this document are to defense exhibits in -the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al. - -[37] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 13 and -16 December 1946, pp. 418-468. - -[38] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 24, 25 -April 1947, pp. 6410-6484. - - 4. LOST (MUSTARD) GAS EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf -Brandt, and Sievers were charged with special responsibility for and -participation in criminal conduct involving mustard gas experiment -(indictment, par. 6 (D)). On this charge the defendants Karl Brandt, -Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers were convicted and the defendants Handloser, -Rostock, Gebhardt, and Blome were acquitted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the Lost (mustard) gas -experiments is contained in its final briefs against the defendants Karl -Brandt and Sievers. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on -pages 315 to 324. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the -defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs -for the defendants Karl Brandt and Sievers. It appears below on pages -324 to 334. This argumentation is followed by selection from the -evidence on pages 336 to 354. - - b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST - DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_ - - * * * * * - - _Gas Experiments_ - -The treatment of wounds caused by chemical warfare agents was of -considerable interest to military medical circles of Germany. On 1 March -1944, the Fuehrer gave Karl Brandt broad powers in the field of chemical -warfare. (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270._) The decree itself is not available, -but there is no dispute that Brandt’s jurisdiction extended to -pharmaceutical products to treat gas wounds. So much he admits. (_Tr. p. -2629._) This necessarily involved a determination of the most effective -method of treatment. That the decree included medical research on gas -wounds can also be concluded from the fact that copies of the decree -which Brandt sent to Himmler (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270_) were forwarded to -Grawitz and Sievers who had previously worked on this problem. -(_NO-013a, Pros. Ex. 271_; _NO-013b Pros. Ex. 272._) - -In any event, on 31 March 1944, Sievers reported to Brandt about the -research activities of Hirt. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._) Hirt had been -experimenting on inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp since -November 1942. (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) For a detailed description of -Hirt’s experiments, see the brief against Sievers (p. 318 ff). Brandt -admitted that Sievers gave him the written report by Hirt, which was -introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 268 (_NO-099_) and that this report -shows on its face that experiments on human beings were performed by -him. (_Tr. p. 2626._) It is significant to note that the report speaks -of heavy, medium, and light wounds caused by Lost. Moreover, Brandt -admitted he talked to Hirt in Strasbourg in April after the meeting with -Sievers. (_Tr. p. 2610._) Approximately 220 inmates of Russian, Polish, -Czech, and German nationality were experimented on with gas, of whom -about 50 died. They did not volunteer. (_Tr. pp. 1052, 1057._) Hirt -continued his gas experiments at Natzweiler during the summer of 1944. -(_Tr. p. 1058._) His gas research was classified “urgent” by Rostock in -August 1944. (_NO-692, Pros. Ex. 457._) - -In addition to his participation in the gas experiments of Hirt, Karl -Brandt personally furthered the criminal experimentation of Otto -Bickenbach. Brandt testified that the gas experiments of Bickenbach came -to his attention in the fall of 1943 on the occasion of a visit to -Strasbourg to see a cyclotron; that later he helped him to arrange a -laboratory; that he assisted him in obtaining experimental animals; that -Bickenbach did not conduct experiments on human beings; that he helped -him in 1944 after he had established this laboratory. (_Tr. pp. 2619, -2620._) - -The Sievers’ diary for 1944 contains the following entry under 2 -February: - - “Met Professor Bickenbach in Karlsruhe and he advises that he - has put his research work under the control of General - Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt. - - “Discussion with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Hirt: 1. Professor Dr. - Bickenbach, without instructions from Hirt and Professor Stein, - contacted General Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt concerning - the phosgene experiments that were [and was] in Natzweiler with - him. Commission is to be withdrawn; for our part Natzweiler is - to be closed.” (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._) - -Phosgene is a chemical warfare agent. (_Tr. p. 2630._) Brandt admits he -was in Natzweiler, but insists that only animal experiments were -conducted. This is in direct contradiction to statements contained in an -official war crimes report of the Government of the Netherlands. -(_NO-1063, Pros. Ex. 328._) Josef Kramer, former camp commander at -Natzweiler, also stated that Bickenbach experimented on prisoners. -(_NO-807, Pros. Ex. 185._) - -Brandt testified that he later assisted Bickenbach in establishing a -laboratory in Fort Franzeky, which is near Strasbourg, and that he saw -animal experiments there. (_Tr. p. 2630._) Bickenbach was a professor at -the University of Strasbourg with Hirt and Haagen. (_Tr. p. 2631._) - -The Bickenbach reports sent to Karl Brandt not only prove that -Bickenbach and his collaborators Helmut Ruehl and Fritz Letz carried out -phosgene experiments on 40 Russian prisoners of war, but that four of -the subjects were killed as a result. (_NO-1852, Pros. Ex. 456._) This -document completely destroys the credibility of the defendant Brandt. - -These reports on the phosgene experiments are designated top military -secret and are numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. They are all addressed to -Plenipotentiary General Brandt. These reports obviously cover the same -series of experiments which culminated in experiments on 40 prisoners -detailed in the 7th report. They were found in the apartment of -Professor Bickenbach by French authorities. The purpose of these -experiments was to determine the effectiveness of a drug called -hexamethylentetramine against phosgene poisoning. Certain preliminary -studies are detailed in the 4th report, dated 11 August 1944, and -mention is made of tests carried out on a “nervous Russian prisoner of -war, who could not be calmed down because of language difficulties * * -*”. - -The 7th report, which is undated, concerns experiments carried out -shortly after 11 August 1944 (the date of the 4th report) as Strasbourg -was overrun by the Allies a few months later. These experiments were -performed on “40 prisoners on the prophylactic effect of -hexamethylentetramine in cases of phosgene poisoning. Twelve of those -were protected orally, twenty intravenously and eight were used as -controls.” On the basis of the 4th report, it can only be concluded that -the 40 prisoners referred to were Russian prisoners of war. The -experimental subjects are further described as being “persons of middle -age, almost all in a weak and underfed condition. On principle, the -healthier ones were used as controls, only control number 39 (J. Rei) -and the orally protected experimental subject No. 37 (A. Rei) had a -localized cirrhotic productive tuberculosis of the lungs. With the -others, no pulmonary disease could be found.” (_1852-PS, Pros. Ex. -456._) - -The experimental persons were subjected to phosgene poisoning with -resulting death to no less than four subjects. (_Tr. p. 3404._) Other -subjects suffered severe lung oedema. - -Defense counsel for Karl Brandt urged the possibility that this report -was not received by him. Assuming _arguendo_ that the report was not -mailed to Brandt, and, if received, not read, the fact remains that the -experiments were performed by Bickenbach and his collaborators, whose -work was directly controlled by Brandt. (_Supra._) Were there no other -evidence on this point, the circumstances of the report having been -addressed to Karl Brandt are sufficient proof of his responsibility. -Moreover, the research of both Bickenbach and Hirt was classified urgent -by Brandt’s Office for Science and Research under Rostock. (_NO-692, -Pros. Ex. 457._) - -The continued interest of Brandt in research on chemical warfare agents -and his knowledge of experiments on concentration camp inmates are shown -by the report dated 31 March 1945 concerning experiments at the -Neuengamme concentration camp. (_NO-154, Pros. Ex. 446._) Water -decontamination experiments were carried out there on inmates. The -report states that the “third series of experiments was carried out with -an agent of the Lost group, the asphyxiating gas Lost; in accordance -with the suggestion made by Oberstarzt Dr. Wirth at the conference on 4 -December 1944 with Reich Commissioner Brandt.” - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST - DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ - - * * * * * - - _Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments_ - -From the winter of 1942 until the summer of 1944, experiments to -determine the most effective treatment for wounds caused by Lost -(mustard) gas were conducted in the Natzweiler concentration camp under -the supervision of Professor Hirt of the Reich University of Strasbourg. -The experiments were ordered by Himmler and the Luftwaffe, and sponsored -by the Reich Research Council. The Ahnenerbe Society and the defendant -Sievers supported this research on behalf of the SS. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex. -267._) The arrangement for the payment of the research subsidies of the -Ahnenerbe was made by Sievers. (_NO-3819, Pros. Ex. 550._) - -The defendant Sievers participated in these experiments by actively -collaborating with the defendants Karl Brandt and Rudolf Brandt, and -with Hirt and his principal assistant, Dr. Wimmer. - -The record shows that Sievers was in correspondence with Hirt at least -as early as 1942, and that he established contact between Himmler and -Hirt. (_NO-791, Pros. Ex. 256_; _NO-792, Pros. Ex. 257_.) - -On 9 April 1942 Sievers wrote to Hirt that Himmler wanted detailed -information from Hirt on his Lost experiments. Sievers went on to say: - - “We are sure to be in a position to put at your disposal for the - furtherance of these experiments unique facilities in connection - with special secret experiments which we are at present - conducting at Dachau. Could you not some day write a brief - secret report for the Reich Leader SS on your Lost experiments? - - “But you should by no means go to Berlin for the time being, - especially since the Reich Leader SS is staying permanently at - the Fuehrer’s Headquarters. I, therefore, intend to pay you a - visit at Strasbourg as soon as possible. But perhaps it would be - easier for you to come to Munich, where I would have the - opportunity of introducing you to the Chief of our Institute for - Entomology and would be able to give you an insight into our - secret experiments at Dachau.” (_NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258._) - -The wording of the letter makes it apparent that it was Sievers himself -who brought Hirt’s research activities concerning Lost gas to Himmler’s -attention. This is also proved by the fact that on 9 February 1942, he -had already submitted to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Hirt’s report -concerning the creation of a skeleton collection and research in the -field of intravital microscopy. The latter experimentation involved the -effect of Lost on the living tissue. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175._) Brandt -informed Himmler about Hirt’s report on 27 February, and directed -Sievers to report again on Hirt’s work. (_NO-090, Pros. Ex. 176._) It -was thus Sievers’ report on Hirt’s research activities which prompted -Himmler to take an interest in Hirt’s Lost experiments. - -On 27 June 1942 Sievers forwarded to the defendant Rudolf Brandt the -information of Hirt concerning the use of mustard gas on combatting -rats. In this letter he mentioned that he would have another conference -with Hirt on this subject. According to Sievers, Hirt had voiced his -expert opinion that Lost even “in a dilution of 1-100 is dangerous for -man if it contacts the body in an adequate amount.” (_NO-794, Pros. Ex. -259._) It was Sievers who forwarded on 2 June 1942 Hirt’s report on his -experiments in treating gas wounds by vitamins. In his covering letter -to this report, Sievers informed the defendant Rudolf Brandt that he was -to meet Hirt “in order to discuss with him a more intensive application, -continuation, and promotion of his research work”. In the report itself, -Hirt stated that he had not been able to conduct experiments with Lost -gas on human beings because of the offensive against France, but -suggested such experiments particularly in order to determine the -protective effect of vitamin treatment. (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260._) - -In a memorandum of 26 June 1942 concerning support by the Ahnenerbe of -the research work of Hirt on mustard gas, Sievers proposed that an -Institute for Military Scientific Research be established within the -Ahnenerbe to bring together Hirt’s and similar research and thus -facilitate the organizational and technical execution of the -experiments. He proposed appointing Hirt as an active member of the new -institute as chief of Department H (Hirt). He also stated that Rascher, -who was then performing high-altitude experiments in collaboration with -Ruff and Romberg, should be appointed as chief of Department R -(Rascher). He stated that the necessary supplies for the new institute -would be easier to explain and more reasonable than if applied for under -the name of Ahnenerbe alone. (_NO-2210, Pros. Ex. 483._) - -As a result of this suggestion by the defendant Sievers, Himmler -directed the establishment of the Institute for Military Scientific -Research within the Ahnenerbe in July 1942. In his letter to Sievers, -Himmler requested that the new institute “support in every possible way -the research carried out by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt and -promote all corresponding research and undertakings; to make available -the required apparatus, equipment, accessories and assistants, or to -procure them * * *.” (_NO-422, Pros. Ex. 33._) - -Sievers proceeded to make all the necessary arrangements for carrying -out the Lost gas experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp. On 27 -August 1942 in a letter to Gluecks of the WVHA, he stated that in -connection with a visit to Hirt in Strasbourg he would like to take Hirt -with him to Natzweiler on 31 August 1942 and he asked Gluecks to make -the necessary arrangements with the commander of the camp. (_NO-935, -Pros. Ex. 481._) In a file note dated 17 September 1942 Sievers stated -that the conference mentioned in his letter to Gluecks had been held in -Natzweiler on 31 August 1942, and that the working conditions there for -the proposed experiments were favorable. Professor Hirt, Stabsarzt Dr. -Wimmer, and Dr. Kieselbach would require automobile transport for part -of the trip from Strasbourg to Natzweiler in order to perform their work -there, and accordingly 20 liters of gasoline would have to be made -available to the camp authorities each month. (_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482._) -In a letter of 11 September 1942 to Gluecks, Sievers stated that the -necessary conditions existed in Natzweiler “for carrying out our -military scientific research work * * *”. He requested that Gluecks -issue the necessary authorization for Hirt, Wimmer, and Kieselbach to -enter Natzweiler, and that provision be made for their accommodation and -board. He also stated that: - - “The experiments which are to be performed on prisoners are to - be carried out in four rooms of an already existing medical - barrack. Only slight changes in the construction of the building - are required, in particular the installation of the hood which - can be produced with very little material. In accordance with - attached plan of the construction management at Natzweiler, I - request that necessary orders be issued to same to carry out the - reconstruction. All the expenses arising out of our activity at - Natzweiler will be covered by this office * * *.” (_NO-978, - Pros. Ex. 480._) - -In a memorandum on 3 November 1942 to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, -Sievers complained about certain difficulties which had arisen in -Natzweiler because of the lack of cooperation from the camp officials. -Sievers was particularly outraged by the fact that the camp officials -were asking that the experimental prisoners be paid for. He said that: - - “When I think of our military research work conducted at the - concentration camp Dachau, I must praise and call special - attention to the generous and understanding way in which our - work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were given. - Payment of [for] prisoners was never discussed. It seems as if - at Natzweiler they are trying to make as much money as possible - out of this matter. We are not conducting these experiments, as - a matter of fact, for the sake of some fixed scientific idea, - but to be of practical help to the armed forces and beyond that - to the German people in a possible emergency.” (_NO-098, Pros. - Ex. 263._) - -Brandt was requested to give his help in a comradely fashion in setting -up the necessary conditions at Natzweiler. The defendant Rudolf Brandt -replied to this memorandum on 3 December 1942, and told Sievers that he -had had occasion to speak to Pohl concerning these difficulties, and -that he had reported that they would be remedied. (_NO-092, Pros. Ex -180._) - -The witness Holl gave in his testimony an accurate and detailed -description of the manner in which the Lost gas experiments were carried -out. The execution of the experiments was supervised by Hirt in the -experimental station Ahnenerbe in the Natzweiler concentration camp. In -the middle of October 1942 the preparation for these experiments was -finished and the actual experimentation began sometime in October or -November, after the experimental subjects were given the same food as -the SS guards for approximately 14 days. The first series of experiments -was carried out by Hirt on 30 experimental subjects with a liquid gas -substance. (_Tr. p. 1051._) In spite of the fact that Hirt, before -selecting these experimental subjects, had promised them that he would -intervene with Himmler in order that they should be released as a reward -if they would volunteer for the experiments, none of the experimental -subjects of all the experiments carried out by Hirt volunteered. -Political prisoners, Russians, Poles, Czechs, and also some German -nationals were among the experimental subjects used. (_Tr. p. 1052._) - -The first series of experiments was carried out by Hirt and an officer -of the Luftwaffe in the following manner: One drop of the liquid was -applied to the lower arm of the experimental subject. Approximately 10 -hours later burns began to appear and spread over the whole body in -every place where drops of the fluid contacted the skin. Some of the -experimental subjects became partially blind. The victims of these -experiments suffered terrible pain. Photographic pictures of the burns -were taken daily. After the fifth or sixth day of the experiment, the -first fatality occurred. The corpse of the victim was dissected and the -autopsy showed that the greater parts of the lungs and other organs had -been destroyed. On the following day, that is, on the seventh day of the -experiment, another seven of the experimental subjects died. The -remaining 22 were sent to another concentration camp after approximately -2 months when they had recovered sufficiently and became fit for -transport. (_Tr. pp. 1052-3._) Other experiments on concentration camp -inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp were carried out in the gas -chamber approximately 500 meters distant from the camp. The experimental -subjects had to enter this gas chamber two by two. They had to smash -small ampules which contained the liquid. This liquid evaporated and the -experimental subject then had to inhale the resulting vapor. Usually the -experimental subjects became unconscious and were returned to the -Ahnenerbe station for further observation of the results of the -experiments. (_Tr. pp. 1053-4._) These results were approximately the -same as those observed in the first series. The breathing organs of the -experimental subjects were likewise destroyed. Their lungs had been -eaten away by the gas. About 150 concentration camp inmates were -experimented upon in this manner. (_Tr. pp. 1034-5._) Approximately the -same percentage as in the first series died as a result of this type of -experimentation. (_Tr. p. 1056._) - -Other Lost gas experiments were carried out by means of injection. These -experiments were carried out in a special room adjoining the -crematorium. The victims of these experiments died without exception. -(_Tr. p. 1056._) Another type of experiment was carried out on the -experimental subjects, who had to take the liquid orally. As Holl was -transferred before Christmas 1943 to an outside camp, he was not able to -give information on the results of this type of experiment. (_Tr. p. -1056._) He, however, returned once a month to the Natzweiler -concentration camp and was therefore able to observe that the Lost gas -experiments continued until autumn 1944, when the Natzweiler -concentration camp was liberated by the Allies. (_Tr. pp. 1057-8._) - -From Holl’s testimony it is proved that approximately 220 inmates of -Russian, Polish, Czech, and German nationalities were experimented upon -with gas by Hirt and his collaborators. About 50 of them died. None of -the experimental subjects volunteered. (_Tr. pp. 1052, 1057._) - -On 7 April 1943, when the Lost experiments were well under way -(_supra_), Himmler ordered an intensification of Lost research. At about -this time the progress of Hirt’s Lost research was threatened by the -transfer of Hirt’s assistant, Wimmer, a medical officer of the -Luftwaffe. Since personnel matters fell within the scope of Sievers’ -duties, he wrote to Rudolf Brandt protesting the proposed transfer of -Wimmer and stating that if Wimmer left the Institute for Military -Scientific Research, the Lost experiments would have to end. Sievers -then outlined the proper procedure for securing the future services of -Wimmer at the Ahnenerbe Institute. (_NO-193, Pros. Ex. 264._) - -Again, on 3 November 1943, Sievers, in order to further the Lost -experiments and assure their continuation, made a certificate which -enabled two of Hirt’s research assistants to obtain increased food -rations. Sievers stated that the research activities in which these -persons were engaged with Department H (Hirt), Strasbourg, of the -Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe involved -health-damaging poisons which had caused injuries to their health. -(_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._) - -The evidence clearly indicated that during the entire period covered by -the Lost experiments, Hirt was associated with the Ahnenerbe Society. In -early 1944 Hirt and Wimmer summarized their findings from the Lost -experiments in a report entitled “Proposed Treatment of Poisoning caused -by Lost”. The report was described as from the Institute for Military -Scientific Research, Department H of the Ahnenerbe, located at the -Strasbourg Anatomical Institute. Light, medium, and heavy injuries due -to Lost gas are mentioned. Sievers received several copies of this -report. (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._) On 31 March 1944, after Karl Brandt -had received a Fuehrer Decree giving him broad powers in the field of -chemical warfare (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270_), Sievers informed Brandt -about Hirt’s work and gave him a copy of the report. This is proved by -Sievers’ letter to Rudolf Brandt on 11 April 1944. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. -275._) Karl Brandt admitted that the wording of the report made it clear -that experiments had been conducted on human beings. (_Tr. p. 2626._) - -The proof has also shown that in October 1943 the defendant Blome, in -his capacity as a Plenipotentiary in the Reich Research Council, issued -a research assignment for Hirt in support of his gas experiments. This -is proved by the file index card on Blome’s research assignment in the -Reich Research Council, where the assignment to Hirt by Blome is listed -under SS priority number 0329. (_NO-690, Pros. Ex. 120._) Sievers -admitted that a Reich research assignment to Hirt “on the behavior of -Lost gas in living organisms” was made. (_Tr. p. 5817._) He further -admitted that at a conference in April 1942, Himmler told him that Hirt -should make Lost experiments on human beings other than volunteer -military cadets. (_Tr. p. 5679._) - -Sievers testified that on 25 January 1943, he went to Natzweiler -concentration camp and consulted with the camp authorities concerning -the arrangements to be made for Hirt’s Lost experiments. These -arrangements included the obtaining of laboratories and experimental -subjects. (_Tr. pp. 5842-43._) Sievers testified that the Lost -experiments were harmful. (_Tr. p. 5810._) On the visit of 25 January -1943, Sievers saw ten persons who had been subjected to Lost experiments -and watched Hirt change the bandages on one of the persons. Sievers said -that the experimental subjects told him that they were volunteers and -Hirt confirmed this to Sievers. (_Tr. p. 5732._) The testimony of -Sievers was contradictory as to his knowledge that the Lost experiments -caused deaths. Sievers testified that in March 1943 he asked Hirt -whether any of the experimental subjects had suffered harm from the -experiments and was told by Hirt that two of the experimental subjects -had died due to other causes. (_Tr. p. 5733._) On the other hand, -Sievers seemed to be referring to Lost experiments when he stated that -he knew of one condemned criminal who had died from the experiments. -(_Tr. p. 5810._) As to the nationality of the experimental subjects, -Sievers was of the opinion, in view of their manner of speech, that the -test persons were Germans. (_Tr. p. 5812._) The proof, however, clearly -shows that Sievers already, as early as January 1942, had knowledge that -nonvolunteers were to be used for the Lost experiments of Hirt. In his -letter of 3 January 1942, Sievers requested Hirt to submit comprehensive -research reports to him in order that he might forward them to Himmler. -Sievers assured Hirt that Himmler would permit Hirt to conduct -experiments of any kind “on prisoners and real criminals who would never -be released anyhow and on persons scheduled for execution.” (_NO-3629, -Pros. Ex. 547._) - -Sievers’ diary entries indicate that his primary concern was making the -necessary arrangements for the carrying out of the Lost experiments. On -25 January 1943 Sievers visited Natzweiler and consulted with the camp -administration; on 28 January 1943 Sievers consulted with Pohl -concerning the continuation of the Lost experiments and undoubtedly -arranged for the allocation of test persons, although he testified that -his conversation related to obtaining space for animals. (_Tr. p. -5736._) On 24 and 25 January Sievers received reports from Hirt on Lost -experiments and on 17 March 1943 Sievers attended a conference at the -Institute for Military Scientific Research where Lost experiments were -reported. (_NO-538, Pros. Ex. 122._) - - c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT - KARL BRANDT_ - - * * * * * - -_I. Experiments performed._ Counsel for the defense does not wish to -make a statement in this connection. - -_II. Order to carry out the experiments._ The defendant Karl Brandt is -not mentioned in connection with the order to carry out these -experiments. - -1. _Drug F 1001._ NO-199, Prosecution Exhibit 253, and NO-198, -Prosecution Exhibit 254, show that the order to carry out these -experiments in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp was given by Himmler -or Reich Physician SS Grawitz in 1939. This is confirmed by the fact -that the reports on the concluded experiments were submitted to Grawitz -or Himmler. - -2. _“Lost” experiments._ According to NO-098, Prosecution Exhibit 263, -the order to Hirt was given on 13 July 1942 as shown in the letter dated -3 November 1942, which contains a research commission of the SS -Institute for Applied Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe. -According to 492-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 267, the order to carry out -experiments was given by Himmler or Goering. - -In accordance with Sievers’ testimony (_Tr. pp. 5733-34_) Himmler, on 8 -March 1944, ordered Hirt to carry out human experiments despite the -latter’s arguments that only animal experiments could achieve further -results. The issuing of this order is supported by the fact that the -reports were sent to Reich Physician SS Grawitz to be passed on to Reich -Leader SS Himmler. NO-085, Prosecution Exhibit 269, contains a -preliminary final report made by Hirt of the year 1941; NO-097, -Prosecution Exhibit 260, Hirt’s final report of 2 June 1942 to be -submitted to the Reich Leader SS; also NO-099, Prosecution Exhibit 268, -Hirt’s 1944 proposals for treatment. This is also supported by the -correspondence between Sievers and Hirt. NO-793, Prosecution Exhibit -258, reports on a conference with Himmler. - -3. _N-substance._ The order to carry out the experiments was issued by -Reich Physician SS Grawitz in connection with Schwab and after Gebhardt, -Gluecks, and Panzinger had been heard. Reference is made to an -instruction from Hitler and an order from Himmler of 15 May. - -_III. Reason for and aim of the experiments._ Statement of the defendant -Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2383._) - -1. _“Lost” and Drug F 1001._ Research work on a healing drug for -injuries, not poisoning, caused by “Lost”. Experiments of this kind have -been carried out by all nations since World War I, England being the -leading nation in these experiments on human beings. The general need -for experiments on human beings, and only those are relevant here, has -been recognized by all nations as a military necessity. (_Karl Brandt -106, Karl Brandt Ex. 49_; _Karl Brandt 107, Karl Brandt Ex. 50_.) - -The necessity to carry out experiments increased in Germany, -particularly during World War II, as all nations were eagerly engaged in -the manufacture of “Lost” gas. The need became imperative in 1944 when -reliable sources reported that the enemy was getting chemical-warfare -agents ready. (_Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl Brandt 101, -Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt 11, Karl Brandt Ex. 10_; _Karl Brandt -12, Karl Brandt Ex. 11_.) - -2. _N-substance._ Reasons for and aim of the experiments are unknown. -N-substance is the name for “normal” substance. It is not a chemical -warfare agent but a fuel substance, intended to be used for ignition. -This N-substance is not to be mistaken for N-“Lost”, that is, -nitrogen-Lost. (_Karl Brandt 88, Karl Brandt Ex. 36_; _Karl Brandt 103, -Karl Brandt Ex. 42_.) - -_IV. Participation in the performance of the experiments._ - -1. _Drug F 1001._ The experiments were carried out exclusively at SS -offices on the orders of the Reich Leader SS. They were performed before -the defendant Karl Brandt received his first official appointment. - -2. _“Lost”._ The experiments were made by Hirt and Wimmer in the SS -Institute for Military Scientific Research in Strasbourg. According to -Sievers’ testimony (_Tr. p. 5788_) the defendant Karl Brandt did not -have any influence on these institutions. The “Lost” chemical warfare -agent does not act like gas, but in a dried form injures the skin. -Ordinarily, experiments are made by all nations by applying small drops -of “Lost” to the skin. They cause injuries to the tissue, which are -treated with healing drugs. This procedure is demonstrated in Holl’s -testimony. (_Tr. p. 1052._) - -3. _N-substance._ Sievers’ testimony (_Tr. p. 5738_) shows that the -experiments were not carried out due to a laboratory experiment of -Professor Thyssen and an expert opinion sent to Himmler. - -_V. The experimental subjects._ - -_A. Number of experimental subjects._ - -1. _Drug F 1001._ No statement. - -2. _“Lost”._ The statements made by the witness Holl about the number of -persons experimented upon must be treated with caution, since they do -not originate with Holl, but were stated by the prosecution and merely -confirmed by Holl. The testimony of Nales about experiments cannot refer -to “Lost”. - -3. _N-substance._ Since there were no experiments, no statement is made. - -_B. Consent of the experimental subjects._ - -1. _Drug F 1001._ No statement. - -2. _“Lost”._ Sievers’ testimony (_Tr. p. 5732_) shows that Hirt said -that the experimental subjects had volunteered, following a lecture by -Hirt. This testimony seems to be quite trustworthy, as it was usual to -make similar experiments on officer candidates of the Academy of -Military Medicine in Berlin. Testimony of Becker-Freyseng (_Tr. p. -8072_) as well as testimony of Sievers (_Tr. pp. 5730-31_); also -testimony of the witness Nales (_Tr. pp. 10409-10471_). - -3. _N-substance._ No experiments, no statement. - -_C. Type of experimental subjects._ - -1. _F 1001._ The documents submitted do not reveal the nature of the -experimental subjects, though the year 1939 indicates that in no case -were foreigners used. - -2. _“Lost”._ According to Sievers’ testimony, the persons used in the -experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp volunteered, so that -the nature of the experimental subjects would appear to be of no -significance as a basis for judgment. The testimony of the defendant -Rudolf Brandt (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_) is no basis to judge the true -state of affairs, as Rudolf Brandt’s testimony (_Tr. pp. 4930-34_) shows -that he himself never witnessed an experiment and that his statements -are conclusions drawn from documents and statements submitted by the -interrogators. - -3. _N-substance._ No experiments, no statement. - -_D. Danger involved for the experimental subjects._ - -1. _Drug F 1001 and “Lost”._ The usual forms of the “Lost” experiments, -applying a drop to the skin, as described by Holl (_Tr. p. 1052_) do not -entail any danger to life, because the aim is to ascertain the most -detailed reactions of the skin towards tiny drops of “Lost”. Experiments -with deadly quantities would prevent this being ascertained. The -relevant statements of the witness Holl must be due to ignorance of the -manner of the experiment. Holl’s statement (_Tr. p. 1050 ff._) and the -affidavit of Wagner (_NO-881, Pros. Ex. 280_) also, to a certain degree, -contradict each other. Holl, a miner by profession, who was hospital -Kapo [inmate trusty] in Natzweiler, makes scientific statements with -illustrations, to which one can hardly attach any value. The affidavit -of Wagner who, as a scientific designer, held, during the experiments, -an elevated position within the inner working circle, is far more -reserved. He knows nothing of deaths occurring during “Lost” -experiments. His conclusions as to how dangerous the “Lost” experiments -were are based on a chart which was most likely intended for a -committee. Sievers’ statement (_Tr. p. 5732_) reports a visit to Wimmer -at Strasbourg during which the latter did not mention that there had -been any deaths. Hirt also confirms this in March 1943; though he cites -two deaths, they had not resulted from “Lost” experiments. The -experiments with drug F 1001, too, are “Lost” experiments. The danger -involved in the experiments has been described accurately. There are no -deaths and health is not impaired permanently. In 23 cases general -condition was not impaired. (_NO-199, Pros. Ex. 253._) In contrast to -this, NO-198, Prosecution Exhibit 254, mentions serious disturbances of -the general condition in eight cases. Yet it must be assumed that these -disturbances were of a temporary nature and occurred only when the -climax of the injury was reached. They did not last throughout the -duration of the experiments. - -2. _N-substance._ The experiments were not carried out. Over and above -that, NO-005, Prosecution Exhibit 279, discloses that the experiments -would, most probably, not result in any permanent bodily harm. - -_VI. Special responsibility and participation of the defendant Karl -Brandt._ - -1. The defendant Karl Brandt did not issue any order to carry out -experiments. Karl Brandt did not have authority to issue orders. - -2. The decree of 1 March 1944 concerning defense equipment in chemical -warfare has been reconstructed by means of the following affidavits: -(_Karl Brandt 103_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl Brandt 5_, _Karl Brandt -Ex. 6_; _Karl Brandt 11_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 10_; _Karl Brandt 4_, _Karl -Brandt Ex. 5_; _Karl Brandt 101_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt -89_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 37_). They show that this decree does not refer to -an authorization to give orders concerning chemical-warfare agents and -their research, but that it represents a production order referring to -defense equipment in chemical warfare. Document NO-015, Prosecution -Exhibit 275, proves that Hirt’s experiments had been completed when the -defendant Karl Brandt received, through Sievers, Hirt’s -treatment-instructions for injuries caused by “Lost” following the -decree of 1 March 1944. The very fact that in this way, for the first -time, he gained knowledge of the results of the experiments proves that -this was an SS affair of Himmler and Hirt and that it belonged to a -sphere where interference was denied to Karl Brandt by strict orders -(see statements on participation in experiments by virtue of contacts -with Himmler). (_Also Karl Brandt 120_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 35_.) The -affidavit of Rudolf Brandt (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_) is refuted by Karl -Brandt 13, Karl Brandt Exhibit 12, as well as statements made by Rudolf -Brandt. (_Tr. pp. 4930-34._) As a matter of fact the name of the -defendant Karl Brandt is never mentioned in the numerous documents -extending over a period of several years. The special secrecy -surrounding the Noli Decree and its contents with regard to poison gas -defense is made sufficiently clear by the necessity of safeguarding the -inadequate poison gas defense in the least possible time, and to hide -this from the enemy. (_Karl Brandt 103_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl -Brandt 101_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt 11_, _Karl Brandt Ex. -10_.) - -3. Karl Brandt’s efforts not to experiment on human beings are proved by -the fact that he had animal material, i. e., man-like apes, brought from -Spain and Africa by the Luftwaffe at great expense. Had he been -predominantly inclined to experiment on human beings, to be had free of -cost, he would hardly have gone to such expense. (_Karl Brandt 12_, -_Karl Brandt Ex. 11._) The exhaustive enumeration of parties engaged on -work with N-gas (_NO-005, Pros. Ex. 279_) proves that the defendant Karl -Brandt did not participate. The N-gas problems belong to a very -different sphere, as shown by the Documents Karl Brandt 88, Karl Brandt -Exhibit 36, and Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Exhibit 42. This is further -confirmed by Sievers’ letter to Hirt of 9 April 1942. (_NO-793, Pros. -Ex. 258._) In it, reference is made to the possibility of advancing -experiments by “single possibilities”. - -NO-422, Prosecution Exhibit 33, contains an order by Himmler of 7 July -1942 to Sievers and the SS Institute Ahnenerbe to support Hirt’s -researches in every possible way. - -4. The codefendant Rudolf Brandt does not know the contents of the -decree of 1 March 1944, though he distinctly alludes to it in his -affidavit, (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_; _Tr. pp. 4941-42_.) - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT - SIEVERS_ - - * * * * * - -1. Lost gas experiments were carried out from November 1942 on by -Professor Dr. Hirt in the Natzweiler concentration camp. - -2. According to the statement of the witness Nales in the session of 30 -April 1947, three experimental persons died. Other experimental persons -are supposed to have suffered from severe burns. - -3. Sievers did not personally participate in these experiments. The -prosecution has submitted the following evidence to prove Sievers’ -participation in the Lost gas experiments: - - Letter of Sievers to Dr. Hirt of 17 January 1942 (_NO-791, Pros. - Ex. 256_) concerning experiments with insecticides. - - Letter of Dr. Hirt to the Ahnenerbe of 20 January 1942 (_NO-792, - Pros. Ex. 257_) concerning answer to Sievers’ letter. - - Sievers’ letter to Dr. Hirt of 9 April 1942 (_NO-793, Pros. Ex. - 258_) concerning Dr. Hirt’s treatises on intravital microscopy - and Lost experiments. - - Sievers’ letter to Dr. Brandt of 27 August 1942 (_NO-794, Pros. - Ex. 259_) concerning the passing on of a message of Dr. Hirt on - the results of Lost experiments. - - Letter of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt of 2 June 1942 (_NO-097, - Pros. Ex. 260_) concerning Dr. Hirt’s report on Lost wounds. - Experiments on human beings could not be made as Hirt was at the - front. - - Note of the Reich Business Manager of 3 November 1942 (_NO-098, - Pros. Ex. 263_). - - Letter of the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. R. - Brandt of 22 April 1943—concerning release of Staff Physician - Dr. Wimmer from the air force so that he can do further work - with Dr. Hirt on Lost experiments. (_NO-193, Pros. Ex. 264._) - - Letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS to - Ministerial Councillor Dr. Goernert, of 9 June 1943—concerning - Dr. Wimmer’s transfer. (_NO-195, Pros. Ex. 266._) - - Certificate of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of - 8 November 1943—concerning the sending of special rations of - food to Dr. Wimmer and Frl. Schmitt. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._) - - Proposed treatment of poison-gas injuries through Lost. - (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._) - - Letter of the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. - Brandt of 9 February 1942—concerning forwarding Dr. Hirt’s - report on his medicinal experiments and a microscope, which - enables one to observe a living tissue. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. - 269._) - - Letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS to the - Ahnenerbe of 10 March 1944—concerning the transmission of a - Fuehrer Decree of 1 March 1944. (_NO-013, Pros. Ex. 272._) The - Fuehrer Decree mentioned—of 1 March 1944—has not been - submitted. - - Letter of the Office “A” to Dr. R. Brandt of 11 April 1944 - concerning Sievers’ report to SS Brigadefuehrer Prof. Dr. Brandt - on the research work of Dr. Hirt. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._) - - Letter of Sievers to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks of 11 September - 1942 (_NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480_) concerning military scientific - research in connection with the Natzweiler concentration camp. - - Letter of Sievers to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks of 27 August 1942 - concerning military scientific research in connection with the - Natzweiler concentration camp. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481._) - - Sievers’ memorandum concerning the carrying out of military - scientific research in the Natzweiler concentration camp of 17 - September 1942. (_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482._) - -The defense refers to the following evidence: - -Lost experiments were carried out at the Military Medical Academy in -Berlin. The experimental persons were cadets studying at this Academy. -(_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260_; _Tr. p. 5679_; _Tr. pp. 8071-72_.) Professor -Dr. Hirt, later Director of the Anatomical Institute at the University -of Strasbourg, took part in carrying out these experiments. (_Tr. p. -5731._) Professor Hirt also carried out Lost experiments on himself. -(_Tr. p. 5733._) Hitler then decreed that experiments were no longer to -be carried out on cadets, as they were more important as soldiers. -Himmler gave Dr. Hirt orders to carry out a few practical experiments on -human beings in addition to his animal experiments. Then on 9 April 1942 -Himmler asked Sievers, who in his discussion with him at Easter 1942 had -also mentioned the research done by Professor Hirt, to ask the latter in -writing to submit a secret report on his Lost experiments. (_NO-793, -Pros. Ex. 258._) Hirt then gave this report to the Ahnenerbe, from where -it was forwarded, with a letter on 2 June 1942 to the personal staff of -the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260._) The heading of this -letter is remarkable: “Report on the Lost experiments carried out by -order of the Wehrmacht.” Dr. Hirt mentions further on page four of the -report that he submitted the written report on the results of his Lost -experiments to the surgeon general who was his superior at that time. -From this report, it is quite clear that experiments on human beings, -with the exception of cadets, had not yet been carried out by Hirt. -However, Dr. Hirt made a further short report, which the Reich Business -Manager of the Ahnenerbe forwarded to the personal staff of the Reich -Leader SS on 27 August 1942. (_NO-794, Pros. Ex. 259._) - -In a letter of 13 July 1942 the Reich Leader SS ordered that Dr. Hirt -should carry out the research work assigned to him in the Natzweiler -concentration camp. (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) Sievers set out for -Natzweiler with Dr. Hirt at the end of August 1942 in order to ascertain -whether the prerequisites existed. As is shown in Dr. Hirt’s report of -19 October 1942, nothing had yet happened besides the drafting of -Oberscharfuehrer Walbert, the animal-keeper. The extension of the -laboratories and stables had not yet begun. And now Dr. Hirt’s report -continues: - - “We were further informed that prisoners, who are later to be - experimented on, would have to be paid by us while they are - subjected to the experiment. For the prisoners in the - L-experiment we propose that they are put on full diet (guards’ - diet), so that the experiments can be carried out under the same - conditions as would prevail with the troops in an actual case. - To begin with we intend to take 10 prisoners for the - experiment.” (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) - -As Hirt reported in addition that the assignment of a second physician -to the Natzweiler concentration camp would be difficult, Sievers was -asked to participate in the efforts to obtain the release of Dr. Wimmer, -surgeon captain of the air force, in order to make him assistant to Dr. -Hirt, especially as the Reich Leader SS expressly wished that Dr. -Wimmer’s transfer should take place as soon as possible. (_NO-194, Pros. -Ex. 265._) - -It was the duty of Sievers to deal with questions of billets, laboratory -finance and similar matters. Therefore, in August and September 1942 he -wrote to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, who was responsible for the -administration of the concentration camps. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481_; -_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482_; _NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480_.) They contain only -administrative matters. - -How little Sievers knew about concentration camps is seen from Document -NO-935. Sievers asks to be sent the exact address of the camp and of the -commandant of Natzweiler. This letter is particularly worthy of notice. - -As for the question whether and to what extent Sievers had knowledge of -the performance of Lost experiments in the Natzweiler concentration -camp, the following can be stated: - -Ferdinand Holl, witness for the prosecution, when giving evidence on 3 -January 1947, said nothing about Sievers’ taking part in any way in the -performance of the Lost experiments at the Natzweiler concentration -camp. The experimenters were Dr. Hirt and officers of the Luftwaffe. The -witness Holl did not mention Sievers at all. If Sievers, who wore SS -uniform, had become known at all in connection with the Lost -experiments, this witness would certainly have made some such statement, -especially as he was dispensary assistant [Revierkapo] and prisoners’ -guard in the so-called Ahnenerbe block in the Natzweiler concentration -camp. (_German Tr. pp. 1051-1059._) - -The witness Grandjean too, who was at the Natzweiler concentration camp -hospital as medical assistant from April 1944 on, knows nothing of -Sievers’ presence at the Natzweiler concentration camp or of any -connection between Sievers and the Lost experiments. (_Tr. p. 1099 ff._) - -Sievers was in Natzweiler concentration camp on 25 January 1943 and also -visited the barracks where the experimental persons for the Lost -experiments were housed. Dr. Wimmer showed Sievers some of the -experimental persons with their forearms in bandages. There were about -10 persons altogether who gave the impression of being quite lively. One -of the experimental subjects was just having his bandage changed, and -Sievers saw that the place being treated on the arm was covered with a -scab. Dr. Wimmer reported nothing about fatal incidents. On the other -hand, by questioning the experimental subjects himself, Sievers found -that they volunteered for those experiments after a lecture by Professor -Hirt. Sievers also learned that from Dr. Hirt himself, who at the end of -the experiments confirmed that he had sent to the camp commandant a -report on the good behavior of the prisoners with a recommendation for -their release. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._) The lecture which Hirt had -previously delivered to the experimental persons is also confirmed by -the witness Holl. (_German Tr. pp. 1051-1059._) This was the only visit -Sievers paid to the experimental subjects of the Lost experiments. After -25 January 1943 Sievers never went to Natzweiler again. This is already -known from his diary entries. - -Sievers attached a certain danger to the experiments, but, not being a -physician, he was in no position to judge exactly from the experiments -and the way in which they were carried out whether there was reason to -be prepared for fatal results. In March 1943 Sievers asked Dr. Hirt -whether any experimental subjects had died. Hirt admitted two deaths -which, he remarked, however, had no connection with the Lost -experiments. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._) - -The statement of the witness Nales, heard in the session of 30 April -1947, deserves special attention. This witness confirmed that the -experimental subjects who had reported for the “Burning Experiments” -were _volunteers_. The witness thereby confirmed Sievers’ statement of -10 April 1947. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._) The witness admitted under -cross-examination that Professor Dr. Hirt, as well as the SS camp -physician, explained to the experimental subjects the nature of the -planned experiments. It may be that the SS camp physician did not -precisely state the actual danger of the experiments. But it may -certainly be supposed that Dr. Hirt described the nature of the planned -experiments more closely in his instructions, which are also confirmed -by the witness Holl. Here Sievers had just as little to do with the -choice of experimental subjects as in all the other cases. He was -present neither at the lecture of the camp physician nor at that of Dr. -Hirt. He could and had to rely on what Dr. Hirt told him concerning the -question of volunteering. - -4. In the case in question, Sievers was again not in a position to give -instructions or orders on the carrying out of the Lost experiments. -Neither did he do so. In as far as he came into contact with the Lost -experiments, he only forwarded correspondence and did subordinate -administrative work, which had no decisive or important influence on the -experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt. - -5. The knowledge that the experiments could exceed certain limits or -become inhuman existed neither before they began nor in the course of -the experiments. - -We still have to examine whether Sievers did not receive, through some -report or other, more exact knowledge of the course of the experiments. -As a result of the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt and Dr. Wimmer, -the “Proposed Treatment of Poison-Gas Injuries Caused by Lost” was -produced. (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._) From this report nothing at all is -to be learned of the course of the experiments in its effect on the -experimental subjects. Since no further report exists, the correctness -of Sievers’ statement must be accepted, according to which he knew no -more of the Lost experiments than what he had seen and heard himself at -Natzweiler. There was nothing in that to make him believe in criminal -experiments. - -This must also form the basis for the judging of Documents NO-195 and -NO-015, Prosecution Exhibits 266 and 275. Sievers could only give -information on what he knew. By virtue of his own observation of the -information which he had received from Dr. Hirt and the correspondence -submitted here, Sievers could only give information on the subject of -the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt and the circumstances under -which they were carried out. It is also quite absurd to suppose that -anyone who himself had detailed knowledge of the course of the -experiments would have been used to pass on information. In his letter -to Dr. Rudolf Brandt of 11 April 1944, Sievers further stated that on 31 -March he had given a report to SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt on -the research work of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt. The -contents of this so-called report were reproduced by Dr. Karl Brandt in -his examination on 4 November 1947. According to that, Sievers only -stated that he had been commissioned by order of Himmler to hand over to -him the final report on Lost by Dr. Hirt. But Sievers said nothing about -being commissioned to discuss the contents with Dr. Karl Brandt. No -discussion took place between Dr. Karl Brandt and Sievers on the -performance of the experiments. This was the “report” from which the -prosecution believes it can draw the conclusion that Sievers had -detailed knowledge of the Lost experiments. (_German Tr. pp. 2365-66._) - -The question still arises, whether Sievers, as a result of the report -made by Hirt on 8 March 1944 to the Reich Leader SS, was not aware of -deaths in connection with the Lost experiments. Hirt’s report did not -disclose anything from which one could conclude that a special -endangering of the experimental subjects was involved. Moreover Hirt -declared that he could arrive at further results only through -experiments on animals. (_German Tr. p. 5734._) - -Finally, an opinion is expressed in regard to the possible assertion of -the prosecution that the application of intravital microscopy -constituted a crime against humanity. The intravital microscope used by -Dr. Hirt could only be used on animals. (_Tr. p. 5734._) Letter from the -firm of Zeiss of 13 January 1947. (_Sievers 9, Sievers Ex. 10_; _Tr. p. -5879_; _Sievers 55, Sievers Ex. 51_.) That intravital microscopic -experiments were carried out on human beings by Dr. Hirt was not -testified to by any of the witnesses and also cannot be seen from any -document. If this had been the case, it certainly would have become -known to third parties through experimental subjects or records. - -6. Sievers had neither the power nor the opportunity to prevent the Lost -experiments or to stop them. Sievers could in no way hinder the course -of experiments against Himmler’s order. - -7. Under these circumstances Sievers could not have become guilty of -criminal negligence either. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - Pros. Ex. - Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page - NO-794 259 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 27 336 - June 1942, concerning mustard gas and - its effect on human beings. - NO-098 263 Memorandum from Sievers to Rudolf 337 - Brandt, 3 November 1942, concerning - research in the Natzweiler - concentration camp. - NO-193 264 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 22 340 - April 1943, regarding prevention of - Dr. Wimmer’s to active duty with the - air force. - NO-099 268 Report by Hirt and Wimmer on the 341 - proposed treatment of poisoning caused - by Lost gas. - NO-005 279 Letter from Grawitz to Himmler, 22 344 - November 1944, requesting prisoners - for experiments. - NO-1852 456 Extract from report on medical 345 - experiments addressed to Karl Brandt. - NO-978 480 Letter from Sievers to Gluecks, 11 349 - September 1942, concerning military - scientific research work to be - conducted at Natzweiler concentration - camp. - - _Defense Documents_ - Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page - Karl Brandt 12 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Walther Schieber 350 - Ex. 11 on his efforts to purchase - experimental animals in Spain and - bring them to Germany. - Karl Brandt 101 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Otto Ambros, 21 351 - Ex. 41 April 1947, concerning the - urgency of experiments in the - field of chemical-warfare agents - and their countermeasures. - Karl Brandt 103 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Walter Mielenz, 21 352 - Ex. 42 April 1947, concerning the - assignment of Karl Brandt in - connection with chemical warfare. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-794 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 259 - - LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 27 JUNE 1942, CONCERNING MUSTARD - GAS AND ITS EFFECT ON HUMAN BEINGS - -The Ahnenerbe - -The Reich Business Manager - - Berlin-Dahlem, 27 June 1942 - G/H/6, g/Sch/4, A/1/101 S/wo - -To: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt -Personal Staff of the Reich Leader SS - Berlin -Subject: Use of mustard gas for exterminating rats. -Re: Your letter of 13 July 1942—A 19/95/1942 - -Dear Comrade Brandt! - -On request SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, Strasbourg tells me: - - “Mustard gas in a dilution of 1:100 is dangerous to human beings - if it contacts the body in an adequate amount. Above all, - mustard gas is dangerously effective to clothing, as is known, - even when greatly diluted, especially in connection with - dampness. Mustard gas touching the skin even in a dilution of - 1:100 causes reddening, possibly it causes little cysts without - effecting necrosis. That is, the effect is much weaker than that - of pure mustard gas. In spite of that, coming in contact with - the clothes in sufficient quantities, especially in the regions - of perspiration as the armpit, or the inguinal region, it can - have exactly the same effect as concentrated mustard gas. For - this, only a trace of it is frequently sufficient. This I - experienced in a laboratory accident with a chemical student, - who touched his armpit with one of the rabbits only for a second - and a reddening ensued which spread over the entire body the - following day, however, without further consequences. In my - opinion, only a place which can be temporarily evacuated by - human inhabitants can be used for gassing. The use of mustard - gas in the vicinity of food stores, especially grain dumps, has - to be absolutely excluded because one cannot know to what extent - the rats carry the mustard gas there. Only gassing of rat holes - would be possible with full application of precautionary - measures. How this will work out technically, I cannot of course - determine. Proper experts would have to judge that. Probably the - case may be the same as with other poisons used for the - extermination of rats (Phosphor-arsenic, strychnine, etc.)—that - means that the use of every type of poison has two sides. In - spite of this, your idea to try the extermination of vermin by - means of poison gas does not seem strange at all, but an expert - on poison gas would have to determine if there are not other - means of killing rats which are less harmful to human beings.” - - With kind regards - Heil Hitler! - [Signature] SIEVERS - -P. S. I shall talk over this matter thoroughly with Professor Hirt one -of these days, and I will see which poison gas expert we might consult -for the solution of the problem. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-098 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 263 - - MEMORANDUM FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 3 NOVEMBER 1942, CONCERNING - RESEARCH IN THE NATZWEILER CONCENTRATION CAMP - -The Ahnenerbe -Reich Business Manager - Berlin-Dahlem, 3 November 1942 - S/Wo G/H/6 -Personal Staff Reich Leader SS [Filing stamp] -File Room Document No. Secret/51/16 [shorthand notation] - - _Note_ - - Re: Research order SS Hauptsturmfuehrer, Professor Dr. August - Hirt, Strasbourg, at the Institute for Military Scientific - Research of the Ahnenerbe. - -The Reich Leader SS [Himmler] ordered, in his letter of 13 July -1942—Journal number AR/48/7/42—that SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. -Hirt carry out the research tasks assigned him, in conjunction with the -Natzweiler concentration camp. It was determined at a conference, for -which I drove, along with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, to -Natzweiler on 31 August 1942, that the necessary conditions exist in -Natzweiler. I reported on this orally on 9 September 1942, and -afterwards in writing on 11 September 1942 to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, -who agreed and promised his full support. In view of the urgency of -these research tasks, I asked SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt to -go to Natzweiler again because until then no report on the beginning of -the work had arrived. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt reported the -following, among other things, concerning this conference which took -place at Natzweiler on 19 October 1942: - - “The conference was due to the fact that until now nothing - besides the detachment of Oberscharfuehrer Walbert had been - accomplished. Nor had the installation of the laboratories been - started to date. - - “It has now been decided to start with the laboratories this - week. - - “It was further established that the camp for security suspects, - Schirmeck, would erect the sheds. Its commander fortunately is - ready, as he told us at once, to place the necessary people at - our disposal free of charge; whereas Natzweiler would not have - been in a position to do so owing to the overbearing and - inconvenient demands of the workers. - - “We were furthermore informed that the prisoners who would later - be used for experiments would have to be paid for by us during - the period that experiments were being made upon them. - - “We are to request that the prisoners of the Lost experiment - receive full rations (food for guards) to enable the experiments - to be carried out under the same conditions as the troops would - be under in a possible emergency. We intend for the time being - to take 10 prisoners as subjects for experiments. - - “Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blanke said that he was refused the - assistance of a second physician in supervising the experiments - on patients, so that he probably would not have enough time to - concern himself with the experiments. - - “The X-ray apparatus which I could procure here has not yet been - definitely allocated by Berlin. We must get it immediately, - otherwise we may lose it. - - “The installation of direct current causes difficulties. One, - however, gets the impression that the building operators had not - dealt with this problem at all. According to their opinion, a - transformer should be procured which is able to transform 220 - volts alternating current into direct current. This is most - likely quite improbable at this place. - - “To equip the laboratory, I would ship the needed things - (freezing microtome, incubators, etc.) from the stocks of the - Anatomical Institute to Natzweiler during the next week. They - remain, of course, the property of the Anatomical Institute. The - two prisoners trained in handling the microtome can then be put - to work. According to Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blanke, both should - be proficient at it.” - -On the basis of this report, I have the impression that not too much -interest in cooperative work exists at Natzweiler. As such cooperation -is ordered by the Reich Leader SS and as SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks is -willing, the whole thing is not understandable to me. I was very much -surprised by the fact that the prisoners to be used for experiments -should be paid for. If we use only 10 prisoners for one experiment, -which might under certain circumstances last 10 months, the cost for the -prisoners alone would total approximately 4,000 RM. When I think of our -military research work conducted at the concentration camp Dachau, I -must praise and call special attention to the generous and understanding -way in which our work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were -given. Payment of [for] prisoners was never discussed. It seems as if at -Natzweiler they are trying to make as much money as possible out of this -matter. We are not conducting these experiments, as a matter of fact, -for the sake of some fixed scientific idea, but to be of practical help -to the armed forces and beyond that to the German people in a possible -emergency. The budget of the institute will be met, according to the -order of the Reich Leader of the SS and as already discussed by me in -detail with SS Standartenfuehrer Loerner, out of the funds of the Waffen -SS. - -Under the supposition that the prisoners needed for experiments are in -the prescribed condition as regards nourishment by this time, the -experiments could start approximately on 10 November 1942. - -Special treatment in Dachau was never the subject of special -instructions but was understood to be necessary and issued without -further ado. On the occasion of his personal inspection of the -experiments at Dachau, the Reich Leader SS also ordered special food as -an additional measure. Just as the Reich Leader SS appeared one day at -Dachau to have a look at the experiments there, this is possible at -Natzweiler too. - - [Signature] SIEVERS - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - -1. To SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt to read in reference to our -discussion of today and with the request for help in comradely fashion -in setting up the necessary conditions at Natzweiler. - -2. Documents. - - [Initials] SI - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-193 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 264 - - LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 22 APRIL 1943, REGARDING - PREVENTION OF DR. WIMMER’S TRANSFER TO ACTIVE DUTY WITH THE AIR FORCE - - Copy - -Ahnenerbe Society - -The Reich Business Manager - - Berlin-Dahlem, 22 April 43 - G/H/6 S/No -Note [Handwritten] - Some information on W. is also in the files of Prof. Hirt - Diary No. 41/8/43 - G. Mue. -To: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt -Personal Staff Reich Leader SS -Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8. - -Subject: Dr. med. habil. Karl Wimmer, born on 24 October 1910, staff - physician of the Luftwaffe, commanded by Air Gau Physician 7, - Munich, for service with the Anatomical Institute of - Strasbourg University. Co-worker at the Institute for Military - Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe Society, Department SS - Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Hirt, Strasbourg. -Re: Your letter of 10.42. No. AR/48/7/42. - Our letter of 25.7.42. - -Dear Comrade Brandt! - -Effective immediately, Dr. Wimmer has been transferred to the XIth -Fliegerkorps [subordinate operational Command of an Air Fleet], and -according to information given by the Air Gau Medical Department 7 was -to report today to Oberstabsarzt Dr. Jaeger, Berlin-Tempelhof, Manfred -von Richthofenstr. 6./II. As Jaeger is going to be absent until 27 -April, Dr. Wimmer will have to wait for a decision, until that date. The -transfer of Dr. Wimmer means discontinuance of the gas experiments at -Natzweiler and Strasbourg, as— - -1. Replacement cannot be supplied due to the specialized knowledge -necessary. - -2. The practical knowledge gained by Dr. Wimmer through an extensive -series of experiments can only be used by him. - -3. On Dr. Wimmer’s leaving, SS Hauptsturmfueherer Prof. Dr. Hirt will -have to take over his lectures and as he, considering his state of -health, is already more than overworked, he can no longer go on with -research work. - -Interim report on experiment results up to now will follow next week to -be submitted to the Reich Leader SS. The intensification of experiments -and research, as well as the continuation of the work at all, as ordered -by the Reich Leader SS on the basis of our discussion on 7 April, is out -of the question, if the small staff of co-workers at the disposal of -Prof. Dr. Hirt, especially Dr. Wimmer, is withdrawn. The problems to be -solved constantly demand scientists with long years of experience and -specialized knowledge. Dr. Wimmer would now be employed only as an army -doctor, which is totally uneconomical considering his knowledge and -abilities, as his services as an army doctor will never be of vital -importance as regards the war, while this may well be said of his -scientific activities. Obviously the Recruiting Office of the Waffen SS -at that time contented itself with the information of the Reich Air -Minister and Supreme Commander of the German Luftwaffe, without -concluding a definite agreement. I request immediate steps for this to -be remedied; the best would be to order Dr. Wimmer to the Waffen SS at -least until 31.13.43 [sic] and if necessary the Reichsarzt SS should -send an army doctor in his place to the Luftwaffe for the time Dr. -Wimmer is assigned to the Waffen SS. - - With best regards - Heil Hitler! - Yours - [Signed] SIEVERS [typewritten] - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-099 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 268 - -REPORT BY HIRT AND WIMMER ON THE PROPOSED TREATMENT OF POISONING CAUSED - BY LOST GAS - - Top Secret - - [Handwritten] Enclosure of Top Secret Z. I. A. H. No. 36 - G. Tgb. S. 19, No. 170 - -From the Institute for Military Scientific Research Department H of the -Research and Instruction Society Ahnenerbe (Reich Leader SS Personal -Staff, Office “A”) Strasbourg, Anatomical Institute. - - _Proposed treatment of poisoning caused by Lost [Gas]_ - - (By Professor Dr. A. Hirt, and Staff Surgeon of the Luftwaffe, - Professor Dr. Wimmer, Strasbourg, 1944) - - _General Observations_ - -The effect of Lost as a poison gas is immediate and, by causing other -pathological reactions within the cells and organs, it damages the -entire efficiency of the individual cell as well as that of the organs. -The organism stands the best chance of absorbing the damage caused by -Lost if there is a large vitamin reserve in the body. In administering -the vitamin treatment after Lost damage has been inflicted, care must be -taken that the medicaments are not administered indiscriminately. The -vitamin combinations (A, B complex, C) taken orally or vitamin B_{1} -administered intravenously in glucose suspension have proved most -effective. Both methods aim at raising the resistance of the -reticuloendothelial system, while simultaneously introducing therapeutic -measures to protect the liver which can be further strengthened by food -with a high carbohydrate and vitamin content. When definite damage to -the organs (liver, cardiac muscles, kidneys) manifests itself, vitamin -treatment has to be discontinued and injections of B_{1} glucose -substituted, as the excretion of the surplus quantity of vitamins -results in a temporary additional overstimulation of the cells of the -excretory organs. - -In addition the inter-connection between the effect of sulfanilamide and -vitamin B complex should be noted. In the case of pulmonary -complications (bronchial pneumonia, pulmonary abscess) which are treated -with sulfanilamides, the administration of yeast is definitely not -indicated. - -The general treatment, as set forth, especially the administration of -vitamin B_{1} glucose, also has a salutory effect on the healing of -cutaneous necrosis. In average and serious cases, the length of the -healing process can thereby be considerably decreased. Supporting -measures to be taken are bandaging the affected limb in splints until -the appearance of clean granulation or placing the patient in a suitable -recumbent position as well as vigorous, systematic psychotherapy. The -psychological influencing of the largely apathetic Lost patient -constitutes an essential part of the treatment, due to the possibility -of thereby influencing the parasympathetic system (circulation, -circulatory system). - - _Outline of treatment_ - -1. All the directions given for the elimination of the Lost poison are -to be followed carefully. Only _after_ elimination of the poison has -resulted may Lost patients be treated and accommodated together in -enclosed rooms. (Inhalation of Lost vapors!) - -2. Damp dressings with Rivanol (0.1-0.05 percent) and Trypaflavin (0.1 -percent) have proved to be a successful treatment of the _skin symptoms_ -(reddening, swelling, blisters) of the first to fourth day. If -necessary, ointment dressings (10 percent cod liver oil tannic ointment, -boric acid ointment, etc.) may be applied. With the opening of the -blisters, the exposed corium of the skin becomes extremely sensitive to -the drying reflex. Introductory treatment; daily bathing with a -potassium permanganate solution, constant damp dressings of -Rivanol-Trypaflavin solution; later on ointment dressings (5 percent cod -liver oil tannic ointment, boric acid ointment). With the development of -_cutaneous necrosis_ and increasing disinfection of the affected parts -of the skin, the damp dressings are to be substituted—if only for -nursing reasons—by ointment dressings, after bathing with a potassium -permanganate solution at body temperature, which are to be changed -daily. Usually after the 17th day, the necrotic spots on the skin can be -removed by drying them up or better still by brushing them off (under -narcosis if necessary) with a potassium permanganate solution. In this -way the local healing process is considerably shortened. - -With the beginning of the knitting of the skin granulation stimulating -ointment dressings (alternately cod liver oil ointment, boric acid -ointment, unguentine, etc.) are sufficient. Lexer’s cod liver ointment -(only 2 hours, painful!) can provide a strong _stimulus_ should -granulation formation be slow and drag itself out. - -3. General treatment of average and serious Lost damage begins with -administering a vitamin mixture compounded as follows: - - Vitamin A (in the form of Vogane oil) increasing from 4 to 10 - drops daily. - - Vitamin C (Cantan—Cebion tablets) 2 tablets 3 times daily. - - Yeast powder 3 teaspoonfuls daily. - -One should consider whether a vitamin compound of similar -preparation—if need be with the addition of glucose—should be produced -for the combat troops. Such a powder mixture would have to be -administered in increasing quantities as well. In all cases of absorbed -Lost damage (liver damage indicated by increased secretion of -urobilinogen in the urine, later icteric skin coloring, cardiac muscle -damage with tachycardiacs, kidney damage with albumin secretion in the -urine) treatment with vitamin mixtures is to be discontinued and to be -substituted by injections of vitamin B_{1} glucose. (Betaxin—Betabion 2 -cc.—also in larger dosages—intravenously with 10 cc. 20 percent -glucose solution.) Injections are to be given slowly, since at the -height of Lost damage the veins of the arms incline to thrombosis! In -the latter case glucose has to be administered orally and vitamin B_{1} -intramuscularly. There exists the possibility, in every case of -considerable Lost damage, of a sudden failure of circulation (frequently -between the 7th and 17th day) indicated by a weak response to heart and -circulatory stimulants. Heart stimulants (strophanthin, caffeine, -digitalis) and circulatory stimulants (sympatol, priscol, camphor, -cardiazol) have therefore to be administered with care in serious cases. -The therapeutic routine valid for all clinical treatment is particularly -valid for cases of organic damage. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-005 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 279 - - LETTER FROM GRAWITZ TO HIMMLER, 22 NOVEMBER 1944, REQUESTING PRISONERS - FOR EXPERIMENTS - -The Reich Leader SS -Reich Physician SS and Police -_Diary No. 39/44 Top Secret_ - - Berlin W. 15, 22 November 1944 - Knesebeckstrasse 50/51 - Telephone: 924249.924374.924351.924406. - - Top Secret - -Subject: Experiment with N-substance. -Reference: Order of Reich Leader SS of 15 May 1944 - 2 copies, 1st copy -To: Reich Leader SS H. Himmler -Field H. Q. - -Reich Leader: - -The Chief of the Technical Office in the SS Administrative Main Office, -SS Gruppenfuehrer Schwab, contacted me in September of this year with -the request to furnish him with two doctors, who as medical experts were -to witness experiments with N-substance, which he was carrying out at -the time by order of the Fuehrer. This was above all a matter of the -clarification of the question whether N-substance was to be considered -for chemical warfare or not. - -For this purpose I have furnished my leading pathologist, SS -Hauptsturmfuehrer University Teacher Dr. Sachs, as well as the doctor -working on the Ahnenerbe, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer University Teacher Dr. -Ploetner. - -In accordance with the experiments carried out on 25 September 1944, the -necessity has now arisen to carry out several experiments on human -beings for the final clarification of the physiological effect of -N-substance on and through the human skin. Five prisoners are necessary -for the execution of these experiments. It is highly improbable that the -experiments will cause any permanent damage. - -In accordance with your order of 15 May 1944, Reich Leader, I have -obtained the opinion of SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Gebhardt, SS -Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks, and SS Oberfuehrer Panzinger. They read as -follows: - -_1. SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt_ - - “I am certainly in agreement with suggestion, and request that - the directions for the supervision of the experiments be issued - directly by the Reich Physician SS and Police.” - -_2. SS Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks_ - - “I have received your letter of 7 November 1944 with regard to - the procurement of five prisoners for the experiments which are - to be carried out with N-substance. - - “For this purpose I have had five prisoners in the Sachsenhausen - concentration camp who have been condemned to death placed in - readiness, on whom these experiments can be carried out.” - -_3. SS Oberfuehrer Panzinger_ - - “From the point of view of the criminal police the experiments - to be carried out there are to be welcomed. Therefore, no - misgivings exist against the handing over of prisoners for - inoculation. - - “If political prisoners should be considered, the Chief of - Office IV, SS Gruppenfuehrer Mueller would still have to be - consulted, but he will certainly also grant permission.” - -I respectfully request the permission so that the experiments can be -initiated. - - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] GRAWITZ - - [stamp] -Personal Staff of Reich Leader SS -Received: 26 November 1944 -No. 1991/44 - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1852 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 456 - - EXTRACT FROM REPORT ON MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ADDRESSED TO KARL BRANDT - - _Contents_ - - Report. (2d copy) - 2 and 3 Phosgene experiments Ruehl - 4 and 5 T-experiments Letz - 6 Aerosol experiment Letz - 7 Natzweiler (3d copy) - - 6. 1st copy - 7. 1st copy - - * * * * * - - Top Secret - 3 copies—3d copy - -To the -Fuehrer’s Plenipotentiary General -for Health and Medical Services, -Surgeon-General Professor Dr. Brandt, -Berlin Ziegelstrasse 5/9 -Surgical Clinic at the University - - _7th Report_ - -On the protective effect of hexamethylentetramine in phosgene poisoning. - -Experiments were carried out on 40 prisoners on the prophylactic effect -of hexamethylentetramine in cases of phosgene poisoning. Twelve of those -were protected orally, twenty intravenously, and eight were used as -controls. - - _The method_ - -The chamber has a capacity of 20 cbm. In experiments I to XIV the -chamber was given a coat of paint which had a strong deteriorating -effect on phosgene. This decrease in concentration was measured after -experiment XI; the curves are shown on chart I [not reproduced]. - -The greatest decrease measured was taken as basis for the calculations -of the average concentration for experiments I to XI. In experiments XII -to XV, the initial concentration and its decrease were measured -separately in each case. In the tables II and III, c_{o} stands for the -quantity of phosgene infused into the chamber in mg/cbm, c_{m} for the -calculated average concentration, _t_ for the time of reaction. c_{m} -was measured as an arithmetic medium from 5 to 7 and calculated on the -curve values obtained through interpolation. - -B. The experimental subjects were all persons of middle age, almost all -in a weak and underfed condition. On principle, the healthier ones were -used as controls, only control number 39 (J. Rei) and the orally -protected experimental subject No. 37 (A. Rei) had a localized cirrhotic -productive tuberculosis of the lungs. With the others, no pulmonary -disease could be found. In the first experiments up to 6g -hexamethylentetramine were given orally, later despite the much higher -concentrations 0.06 g/kg body weight, orally as well as intravenously. - - _Results_ - -The intravenously protected experimental subjects, without exception, -all survived the phosgene poisoning with a c. t. of 247 to 5,400. There -were no symptoms of pulmonary oedema after intravenous protection even -with a c. t. of 2,970. Only experiment No. 10 with a c. t. of 3,960 -suffered pulmonary oedema of the first degree, which was overcome -without any therapy and in experiment No. XIV the intravenous protection -was penetrated to an extent to cause pulmonary oedema of the 3d degree, -which however was overcome by oxygen inhalation. The experimental -subject recovered. - -All control subjects fell ill. With a c. t. of 768 and 1,180 a first -degree pulmonary oedema resulted which was overcome. With a c. t. of -2,275, one control subject died, the second contracted a second degree -pulmonary oedema but recovered. A c. t. of 5,400 killed one control -subject after 4 hours, the other after 14 hours. - -After oral protection, a c. t. of 247 to 768 was suffered without any -oedema, even when the protective solution of hexamethylentetramine was -drunk only 2-3 minutes before the inhalation of the phosgene. Two -control subjects showed a marked oedema with a c. t. of 768. With a c. -t. of 1,485 one protected subject fell seriously ill with a second -degree oedema, a second subject likewise protected, having breathed the -same phosgenic air, was unaffected. The cause of this striking -difference must be sought in the different resorption of the -hexamethylentetramine on the one hand and in the different reaction and -the different volume of respiration of the experimental subjects on the -other hand. - -Even a c. t. of 2,275 resulted in only a slight pulmonary oedema in an -orally protected test subject, whereas one control subject died after 4 -hours, and a second contracted a second degree pulmonary oedema. The -oral protection was penetrated by a c. t. of 5,400, the protected test -subject died, as did the two control subjects. - -Experiment XV is characteristic of the test schedule and its results, -and will therefore again be specially described. Of four test subjects, -the first was protected orally, the second intravenously, the third -received an intravenous injection of hexamethylentetramine after the -poisoning, in order once more to ascertain the effect of therapeutic -treatment, the fourth was not treated at all. The four subjects were -placed in the chamber in which a phial containing 2.7 grams of phosgene -was smashed. The test subjects remained in this concentration for 25 -minutes. The phosgene content was measured three times during the -inhalation. The readings showed an average concentration of 91 mg. per -cbm. The subject protected intravenously remained healthy, and did not -show the least signs of difficulties or symptoms, the orally protected -subject contracted a slight pulmonary oedema, subsequently -bronchopneumonia and pleurisy, from which he recovered. One control -subject also survived his pulmonary oedema; the second died a few hours -later, and the autopsy showed the characteristics of very serious -pulmonary oedema. - - _Summary_ - -The conclusions of the experiment are impaired by the varying -constitutions and the general poor state of nutrition and of physique of -the experimental subjects, as well as by the different behavior and the -different volume of respiration of the experimental subjects under gas, -which was here demonstrated for the first time. But the experiments gave -the following decisive conclusions: - -1. A previous intravenous injection of 3 grams of hexamethylentetramine -completely prevents serious toxic and fatal phosgene poisoning from a c. -t. of 2,275. - -2. An endurable quantity of hexamethylentetramine taken prophylactically -weakens a fatal poisoning to such an extent that it can be overcome -without treatment. c. t.=2,275. - -3. Nonfatal but nevertheless oedema-producing poisonings are made -positively ineffective by intravenous application, and are weakened by -oral application, c. t. 250 to 1,980. - -4. The oral application of hexamethylentetramine is no longer effective -against phosgene poisoning of a c. t.=5,400, the intravenous injection, -however, weakens the effect to such an extent that the protected subject -is able to overcome a lung oedema. - -5. The _dosis letalis minima_ (minimum lethal dose) based on these -experiments cannot yet be determined with certainty. One c. t. of 2,275 -resulted in the death of one experimental subject, and the second -developed second degree oedema of the lungs which was cured. - -6. Some of the protected experimental subjects who did not develop -oedema of the lungs remained completely healthy, others suffered from -slight bronchitis with a brief fever. In every case they recovered -without treatment. - - * * * * * - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-978 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 480 - - LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO GLUECKS, 11 SEPTEMBER 1942, CONCERNING MILITARY - SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH WORK TO BE CONDUCTED AT NATZWEILER CONCENTRATION - CAMP - -The Reich Leader SS -Personal Staff -The Chief of the Office Ahnenerbe - - Berlin-Dahlem, 11 September 42 - Puecklerstr. 16 - - [handwritten] secret - G/W/12 - -To: SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks -Berlin-Oranienburg - -Subject: Military Scientific Research in Connection with the Natzweiler - Concentration Camp. -Reference: Personal discussion of the 9th inst. - -Brigadefuehrer, - -Based on my report that, as proposed by the Reich Leader SS, there is a -good possibility for carrying out our military scientific research work -in the Natzweiler concentration camp, I hereby summarize what awaits -your approval: - -1. Information to the commander’s office, Natzweiler concentration camp: -SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt, Stabsarzt Dr. Wimmer, and Dr. -Kieselbach are authorized to enter the Natzweiler concentration camp. -During their activity in the Natzweiler concentration camp, they are to -be provided with accommodations and board. - -2. SS Oberscharfuehrer Walbert, at present supply sergeant in the -administration of the Natzweiler concentration camp, is to be detached -for service with the Institute for Military Scientific Research, -Personal Staff Reich Leader SS, Strasbourg-Natzweiler section. Walbert -will have to tend the animals under the supervision of SS -Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt. It is requested that another man -be assigned to the administration of the Natzweiler concentration camp -in order to replace SS Oberscharfuehrer Walbert. - -3. The transfer of two prisoners from the group which has been trained -on the microtome for pathological research in the Buchenwald -concentration camp is requested. - -4. It is furthermore requested, that a younger physician be assigned to -assist the camp medical officer, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blanke, in the -Natzweiler concentration camp. - -5. The experiments which are to be performed on prisoners are to be -carried out in four rooms of an already existing medical barrack. Only -slight changes in the construction of the building are required, in -particular the installation of the hood which can be produced with very -little material. In accordance with attached plan of the construction -management at Natzweiler, I request that necessary orders be issued to -same to carry out the reconstruction. - -6. All the expenses arising out of our activity at Natzweiler will be -covered by this office. I have already discussed the accounting -procedure with the administrative leader, SS Obersturmfuehrer -Faschingbauer. - -In conclusion I would be very grateful to you, my dear Brigadefuehrer, -if you would inform the commander of the Natzweiler concentration camp, -that you have approved the execution of the work at Natzweiler, just as -it was discussed with me there, and about which I reported to you in -detail, and that you desire that we be given assistance in fulfilling -the duties with which we have been entrusted by the Reich Leader SS. - - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] SIEVERS - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - -2. To SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 12 - KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 11 - - AFFIDAVIT OF DR. WALTHER SCHIEBER ON HIS EFFORTS TO PURCHASE - EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS IN SPAIN AND BRING THEM TO GERMANY - - _Affidavit 111_ - -I, Dr. Walther Schieber, at present in Nuernberg, Justice Prison, have -been duly warned that I am liable to punishment if I make a false -statement. I affirm under oath that my deposition corresponds to the -truth and was made to be offered in evidence before Military Tribunal -No. I at the Palace of Justice, at Nuernberg, Germany. During the summer -of 1944, Professor Karl Brandt informed me during discussions concerning -the execution of the especially urgently operated Brandt—and -defense—program against chemical warfare agents that he was having -considerable difficulties in procuring animals which were needed for -test purposes concerning the effect of the top chemical warfare agents -and for which he had requests from testing office. - -At that time the problem was how to convert the production of chemical -warfare agents on account of raw material shortage to the production of -the top chemical warfare agent Sarin, the effect of which would not yet -be finally determined. - -To carry out these tests, an action to procure animals was started by me -in Spain, instigated by Professor Karl Brandt; because of the biological -reaction parallels to human beings, apes resembling men were allegedly -needed. An assistant was sent there especially for this purpose. For -this, the armament office offered approximately 200,000 Swiss francs, -and after my resignation as Chief of the Armament Supply Office in -October 1944 from the Speer Ministry I made strenuous efforts, together -with Professor Karl Brandt, to have a large number of animals brought by -extremely difficult air transportation from Spain to Germany. These were -put at Professor Karl Brandt’s disposal for the testing offices. - - [Signed] WALTHER SCHIEBER - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 101 - KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 41 - -AFFIDAVIT OF DR. OTTO AMBROS,[39] 21 APRIL 1947, CONCERNING THE URGENCY - OF EXPERIMENTS IN THE FIELD OF CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS AND THEIR - COUNTERMEASURES - -I, Dr. Otto Ambros, at present in Nuernberg, Justice Prison, having been -duly informed that I shall render myself punishable if I submit a false -affidavit, declare under oath that my statement is true and was made for -presentation in evidence to Military Tribunal No. I in the Palace of -Justice, Nuernberg, Germany. - -During the war I was a director of I. G. Farben and had to work on -chemical warfare agents and protective agents, and can therefore state -the following: - -I got into touch with Professor Dr. Karl Brandt during 1944. On that -occasion Professor Brandt told me he had to take an interest in chemical -warfare agents and countermeasures. At the same time he showed me a -letter from Adolf Hitler referring to this subject. Furthermore, he -stated that he did not understand very much about chemical warfare, as -he was not an analytical chemist. His primary concern in this field was -the question of the supply of materials for gas masks, i. e., activated -charcoal and the synthetic materials and textiles which are necessary -for these. - -Professor Brandt visited two poison gas plants at Dyherrnfurth and -Gendorf, to become generally acquainted with the nature of poison gas -itself. - -There was the greatest uneasiness at that time regarding protection -against chemical warfare, as it was thought that the Allies would use -poison gas. It was said that they had brought poison gas over with them -when they landed at Tunis. - -It was also said that the Russians had new gas masks which fact pointed -to the possibility of the use of a new kind of poison gas. - -On the German side, there was definitely a serious shortage of chemical -warfare protective equipment, as not even the most urgently needed gas -masks were available, nor was it even possible to produce the required -number. - -Nuernberg, 21 April 1947. - - [Signature] DR. OTTO AMBROS - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 103 - KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 42 - - AFFIDAVIT OF DR. WALTER MIELENZ, 21 APRIL 1947, CONCERNING THE - ASSIGNMENT OF KARL BRANDT IN CONNECTION WITH CHEMICAL WARFARE - -I, Dr. Walter Mielenz, born 20 November 1888 in Berlin, residing in -Berlin-Friedenau, Ceciliengaerten 45 (business address: -Berlin-Lichterfelde W, Kadettenweg 67, Telephone 245218), have been duly -advised that I shall render myself liable to punishment if I give a -false affidavit. I declare under oath that my statement is true and was -made to be submitted in evidence to Military Tribunal No. I, at the -Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany. - -From 1933 to 1945 I worked at the Reich Air Ministry as an analytical -chemist, technical advisor on the question of the protection of the -civilian population against gas. - -I am familiar with the decree of 1 March 1944 in which special tasks -were assigned to Professor Dr. Karl Brandt in connection with chemical -warfare. As far as I remember, the decree was worded approximately as -follows: - - “I have ordered my Commissioner General for the Medical and - Health Service (Professor Dr. Brandt) to take a major part in - all matters concerning protection against chemical warfare (of - the army and the civilian population) and to issue orders to the - stations (military and civilian) established for this purpose. - In questions of the protection of the civilian population - against chemical warfare, he must obtain in advance the approval - of the Reich Air Minister and Commander in Chief of the - Luftwaffe.” - -The decree certainly did not contain any order for research in -connection with chemical warfare agents. - -The reason for the appointment of Professor Karl Brandt was the -assumption that the initiation of chemical warfare by the enemy was -shortly to be expected. This assumption was based on the fact that -intelligence was accumulating, according to which gas was being prepared -in large quantities by the enemy. Thus confidential agents reported that -poison gas ammunition was being stored at Tunis and Dakar, and these -reports were constantly being confirmed. - -The greatest alarm was caused by the examination of captured Russian gas -masks, which showed that they afforded protection against far stronger -concentrations of poison gas than it had so far been believed possible -to achieve at the front. Their protective capacity far surpassed that of -the German Army and civilian gas masks. From this fact, it could be -concluded that the scientists and technicians of the Red Army had -succeeded in developing new and particularly effective methods of attack -in chemical warfare for known or new chemical warfare agents. - -The German measures for gas defense were totally inadequate in number, -too. The civilian population in particular was exposed almost without -defense to gas attacks because the issue of civilian and infants’ gas -masks in many town and country districts was seriously behind schedule. -The relevant figures for civilian gas masks in the different supply -areas were between 10 and 70 percent of the population to be equipped, -the average figure being about 32 percent, and for infants’ gas masks, -about 7 percent. This estimate is based on the total number of civilian -and infants’ gas masks manufactured up to that date, in relation to the -total number of persons entitled to supply. This estimate did not take -into consideration the fact that, without doubt a large part of the -equipment which, in some cases had been in the hands of the population -for years, was no longer completely fit for use on account of faulty -unsuitable storage, or had been rendered useless by air raid damage, -evacuation of the owners, and other reasons, or lost completely. The -losses in civilian gas masks were estimated at about 15,000,000 (almost -50 percent of the total output up to that date) so that for the -completion of the initial equipment (without reserves) the manufacture -of 45,000,000 gas masks had to be planned. - -In view of these facts, Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was assigned the task -of providing with the utmost speed for the improvement of gas defense to -avert the danger which threatened. - -Through the initiative of Professor Brandt, the gas defense program was -finally given the highest priority and had an equal standing with the -program for the construction of fighter planes and tanks. - -I know that Professor Dr. Brandt was most strongly opposed to the -propaganda demand spread by extreme Party circles for the initiation of -chemical warfare by Germany. - -I regularly had to work with Professor Karl Brandt on gas defense and I -know that in view of their importance and urgency, he dispatched all -matters himself. The Department of Science and Research and its chief, -Professor Rostock, were not concerned with these matters. - -The N-agent was not one of the chemical warfare agents. It is an -incendiary agent composed of chlorine and fluorine (ClF_{3}); this -N-agent has never been mentioned in connection with gas defense. - -I know that there existed in the Armament Ministry a special commission -for the decontamination of drinking water; this had neither been -established by Professor Brandt nor was it under his command. The task -of this commission was the production of decontamination equipment but -not the development of such equipment, and especially not the -development of new processes for the decontamination of water. The -repeated suggestions made by Professor Haase in this context were -therefore beyond the field of activity of the commission. They were -discussed, however, at a meeting in December 1944, at which I was -present. - -At this meeting the representatives of the army and the air raid -protection service stated that for their sphere, i. e., for the gas -defense of the troops and the civilian population, there was no need to -continue this work. Professor Brandt who was present at the meeting had -already agreed in advance with the general opinion that the efforts of -Haase did not admit of the expectation of any improvement on the -experiences presented for consideration, and that they should therefore -be rejected. He therefore asked me to work towards this end. - -As far as I know, the commission was never concerned with sea-water -experiments. In particular, to my knowledge, the commission had no -knowledge of human experiments for the testing of agents designed to -render sea-water potable. - -I can state with certainty that the undertaking of gas experiments on -human subjects was never spoken of by Professor Brandt and myself. -Moreover, during discussions with army experts concerned with gas -defense and chemical warfare, I never heard that Professor Brandt in any -way suggested human experiments or otherwise spoke of such experiments. - -Nuernberg, 21 April 1947 - - [Signature] DR. WALTER MIELENZ - ------ - -[39] Defendant in case of United States vs. Carl Krauch, et al. See -Vols. VII and VIII. - - 5. SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The defendants, Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, -Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng, -Oberheuser, and Fischer were charged with special responsibility for and -participation in criminal conduct involving sulfanilamide experiments -(par. 6 (E) of the indictment). During the trial the prosecution -withdrew this charge in the cases of Schroeder, Blome, and -Becker-Freyseng. On this charge the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, -Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, Oberheuser, and Fischer were convicted and the -defendants Rostock, Genzken, and Poppendick were acquitted. Regarding -the defendant Rudolf Brandt, the judgment makes no reference to this -charge. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the sulfanilamide -experiments is contained in its final brief against the defendant -Gebhardt. An extract from that brief is set forth below on pages 355 to -364. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these -experiments has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant -Gebhardt. It appears below on pages 364 to 370. This argumentation is -followed by selections from the evidence on pages 371 to 391. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST - DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_ - - * * * * * - -A. SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS - -Experiments to test the effectiveness of sulfanilamide on infections -were conducted in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp from 20 July 1942 -until August 1943. These experiments were performed by the defendants -Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._) - -Gebhardt personally requested Himmler’s permission to carry out the -sulfanilamide experiments and their execution was his responsibility. -(_Tr. pp. 4024-5._) He himself carried out the initial operations. (_Tr. -p. 4032._) - -The experimental subjects consisted of 15 male concentration camp -inmates, who were used during the preliminary experiments in July 1942, -and 60 Polish women who were experimented on in 5 groups of 12 subjects -each. - -The purpose of the experiments was stated in a preliminary report by -Gebhardt dated 29 August 1942, in which he stated: - - “By order of the Reich Leader SS, I started on 20 July 1942 at - Ravensbrueck concentration camp for women on a series of - clinical experiments with the aim of analyzing the sickness - known as gas gangrene, which does not take a uniform course, and - to test the efficacy of the known therapeutic medicaments. - - “In addition, the simple infections of injuries which occur as - symptoms in war surgery had also to be tested; and a new - chemo-therapeutic treatment, apart from the known surgical - measures, had to be tried out.” (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473._) - -The sulfanilamide experiments, as substantially all of the experiments -with which the case is concerned, were directly related to the German -war effort. Allied propaganda about the “miracle drug” sulfanilamide was -having considerable effect on the confidence of the German soldiers in -their medical officers. Heavy casualties had been sustained from gas -gangrene on the Russian front in the winter of 1941-42. The theoretical -question to be answered by these experiments was whether the wounded -should be treated surgically in the front line hospitals or should be -treated by field medical officers with sulfanilamide and then sent down -the long lines of communication to a base hospital for further -treatment. (_Tr. pp. 4010-14._) - -The same report cited above states that the defendant Fischer was -appointed by Gebhardt as his assistant; Dr. Blumenreuter, a subordinate -of the defendant Genzken, made available the surgical instruments and -medicines; the defendant Mrugowsky put his laboratory and co-workers at -the disposal of Gebhardt; and Dr. Lolling, chief medical officer of all -concentration camps, assigned Dr. Schiedlausky and the defendant -Oberheuser as co-workers. - -This preliminary report concerns itself with the early experiments on 15 -male subjects to determine a mode of infection with gangrene. Gebhardt -was assisted by the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, which made -available the bacteria and gave advice on the method of bringing about -gangrene infection artificially. The experimental technique was -described in the report as follows: - - “The point was to implant the lymph cultures on the damaged - muscle tissue, to isolate the latter from atmospheric and - humoral oxygen supply, and to subject it to internal tissue - pressure. The inoculation procedure was as follows: a - longitudinal cut of 10 centimetres over the musculus peroneus - longus; after incision into the fascia the muscle was tied up - with forceps in an area the size of a five-Mark piece; an - anaemic peripheral zone was created by injection of 3 cc. - adrenalin and in the area of the damaged muscle the inoculation - material (a gauze strip saturated with bacteria) was imbedded - under the fascia, subcutaneous adipose tissue and skin sutured - in layers.” (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473._) - -In the first series of experiments the subjects were infected with -staphylococci, streptococci, para oedema malignum, bacteria Fraenkel, -and earth. The resulting infections were not considered serious enough, -and a conference was held with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS -and the bacteria used in bringing about the infections were changed. Six -additional male subjects were then infected, but again the results were -not considered serious enough. After further consultation with the -collaborators in the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, the infectious -material was changed by adding wood shavings. During the course of these -experiments the subjects were treated with various types of -sulfanilamides, including catoxyn and marfanil-prontalbin, the latter -being strongly recommended by the Army Medical Inspectorate. Efforts -continued to make the gangrene infection more serious, and the report -concluded with the following paragraph: - - “We are now investigating the problem as to why the gangrene in - the present cases did not fully develop. Therefore, the injuring - of the tissue and the exclusion of a muscle from the circulation - of the blood were undertaken during a separate operating - session, _and the large-scale necrosis resulting therefrom, was - to be inoculated with bacteria strain which had already had one - human passage_. For it is only when the really definite clinical - picture of the gangrene has appeared that conclusions may be - drawn on therapy with chemo-therapeutics in connection with - surgical operations.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. - 473._) - -This report was certified as a correct copy by the defendant Poppendick. - -In his zealousness to protect his fellow defendants, Gebhardt testified -that neither the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS nor the defendant -Mrugowsky played any part in these experiments, and that the infectious -material was sent to him by Grawitz. (_Tr. p. 4179._) This is clearly -contradicted by his own report cited above. - -Following the conclusion of the preliminary experiments on the male -prisoners, experiments were continued on female Polish inmates. The -affidavit of the defendant Fischer states that three series of -operations were performed, each involving 10 persons, one using the -bacterial culture and fragments of wood, the second using bacterial -culture and fragments of glass, and the third using culture plus glass -and wood. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._) These experiments were undertaken -during the month of August 1942. While Fischer speaks of experimental -groups of 10 persons each, the defendant Gebhardt testified that the -groups were composed of 12 experimental subjects. (_Tr. p. 4056._) On 3 -September 1942, after 36 women had been experimented on, Reich Physician -SS Grawitz visited Ravensbrueck and inspected the experimental subjects. -He asked Gebhardt how many deaths had occurred, and when it was reported -that there had been none, he stated that the experiments did not conform -to battlefield conditions. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206_; _Tr. p. 4057_.) In -order to make the gangrene infections still more severe, a new series of -experiments involving 24 Polish female inmates was carried out. In this -series the circulation of blood through the muscles was interrupted in -the area of infection by tying off the muscles on either end. This -series of experiments resulted in very serious infections and a number -of deaths occurred. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._) - -Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser all admit that three of the -experimental subjects died as a result of the experiments. (_NO-228, -Pros. Ex. 206_; _Tr. pp. 4059, 5492_.) Other evidence, however, proves -that five died as a direct result of the experiments and six were -executed by shooting at a later date. (_Tr. pp. 1438, 1449, 797, 845, -863._) - -Four of the Polish women who were subjected to these experiments -testified before the Tribunal. Most of the women who were used as -subjects had been active in a resistance movement. (_Tr. pp. 787, 816, -840, 857._) Only healthy inmates were used. (_Tr. pp. 786, 815, 836, -856, 860-1._) None of them volunteered for the experiments. (_Tr. pp. -789, 819, 842, 844-5, 861._) On the contrary, they protested against the -experiments both orally and in writing. (_Tr. pp. 789, 794, 823-5._) -They stated that they would have preferred death to continued -experiments, since they were convinced that they were to die in any -event. (_Tr. pp. 795, 824, 863._) They testified that 74 Polish women, 1 -German, and 1 Ukrainian woman were experimented upon. (_Tr. pp. 1438, -796, 818, 862._) Since Gebhardt placed the total number of Polish female -experimental subjects in the sulfanilamide experiments at 60, the -additional 16 women mentioned by the witnesses may well have been -subjects in the bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration experiments. (_Tr. -p. 1462._) - -The witness Kusmierczuk was one of the subjects in the sulfanilamide -experiments. She is a Polish national and arrived in the Ravensbrueck -concentration camp in the fall of 1941. (_Tr. p. 857._) She was operated -on in October 1942 and a severe infection developed in her case. (_Tr. -p. 858._) She remained in the hospital from October 1942 until April -1943, but her wound was still not healed at the time she was discharged -from the hospital. Her condition deteriorated and she was readmitted to -the hospital on 1 September 1943. (_Tr. p. 860._) She left the hospital -the second time in February 1944, but her wound did not finally heal -until June 1944. (_Tr. p. 861._) She identified the defendants Gebhardt, -Fischer, and Oberheuser as having participated in the experiment upon -her. (_Tr. p. 860._) Kusmierczuk suffered permanent injuries as a result -of this experiment, and her condition was described by the expert -witness Dr. Leo Alexander. (_Tr. pp. 864-9._) The post-operational care -of this woman was not handled by Gebhardt and Fischer, but by the camp -doctors. On the occasion of her second admission to the hospital in -September 1943, Kusmierczuk was operated on by Dr. Treite in an effort -to cure the deep-seated infection. (_Tr. p. 861._) [See photographs, pp. -898 to 908.] - -The expert witness Maczka, who worked as an X-ray technician in the -Ravensbrueck concentration camp during the course of the experiments, -testified concerning deaths of the five Polish experimental subjects -resulting from the sulfanilamide experiments. Weronica Kraska developed -typical tetanus symptoms a few days after the experimental operation was -performed on her. After a brief illness she died under cramps caused by -tetanus. (_Tr. p. 1438._) Kazimiera Kurowska was artificially infected -with gangrene bacillus. She was a healthy Polish girl of 23 years. From -day to day her leg became blacker and more swollen. She was given care -for only the first few days. After that she was taken to Room 4 in the -hospital where she lay for days in unbelievable pain and finally died. -Maczka was able to observe this case personally and in her opinion -immediate amputation would have saved her life. (_Tr. pp. 1439-40._) It -is quite clear that if a German soldier’s life had been endangered by -gangrene infection, an amputation would have been undertaken -immediately. In this experiment, where the very effort was to develop a -serious gangrene infection and to test the effects of sulfanilamide -preparations, it is equally clear why the leg of Kurowska was not -amputated. Aniela Lefanowicz was infected with oedema malignum. Her leg -kept swelling more and more, the blood vessels eroded, and she died from -bleeding. Maczka testified that the blood vessels should have been tied -off and an amputation carried out in order to save her life. She was -completely neglected after the first 2 or 3 days. (_Tr. pp. 1440-1._) -Zofia Kiecol died under similar circumstances. (_Tr. p. 1441._) - -Alfreda Prus was infected with oedema malignum the same day as the -witnesses Kusmierczuk, Kiecol, and Lefanowicz. She was a beautiful, -young 21-year-old girl, and a university student. She proved to be -stronger than Kiecol and Lefanowicz and for that reason she lived a few -days longer. She suffered terrible pain and finally died of hemorrhage. -(_Tr. pp. 1142-3._) Kusmierczuk was the only subject to survive that -series of experiments. (_Tr. p. 1443._) - -It is hardly necessary to point out that all of the experimental -subjects suffered severe pain and torture. (_Tr. pp. 790-1, 802, 820, -842, 859_; _NO-876, Pros. Ex. 225_; _NO-871, Pros. Ex. 227_; _NO-877, -Pros. Ex. 228._) The Tribunal was able to observe for itself the -mutilations to which the Polish witnesses were subjected, and pictures -of their scars were introduced to form a permanent part of the record. -(_NO-1079a, b, and c, Pros. Ex. 209_; _NO-1081a, and b, Pros. Ex. 211_; -_NO-1082a, b, and c, Pros. Ex. 214_; _NO-1080a-g, Pros. Ex. 219._) - -The post-operational care of the experimental subjects was entirely -inadequate. (_NO-873, Pros. Ex. 226._) Many of the subjects were given -neither medicine nor morphine by order of defendant Oberheuser. -(_NO-877, Pros. Ex. 228._) They were given bandages from time to time -when the doctors felt like it. Sometimes they waited 3 days, sometimes 4 -days. There was a terrible odor of pus in the rooms. The girls were -forced to help each other. (_Tr. p. 1444._) Post-operational care, such -as it was, was administered by the camp doctors. The witness -Broel-Plater testified that: - - “My leg pained me; I felt severe pain, and blood flowed from my - leg. At night we were all alone without any care. I heard only - the screaming of my fellow prisoners, and I heard also that they - asked for water. There was nobody to give us any water or bed - pans.” (_Tr. p. 790._) - -The witness Karolewska testified that: - - “I was in my room and I made the remark to fellow prisoners that - we had been operated on under very bad conditions and were left - here in this room, and that we were not given even the - possibility to recover. This remark must have been heard by a - German nurse who was sitting in the corridor because the door of - our room leading to the corridor was open. The German nurse - entered the room and told us to get up and dress. We answered - that we could not follow her order because we had great pains in - our legs and could not walk. Then the German nurse came into our - room with Dr. Oberheuser. Dr. Oberheuser told us to dress and go - to the dressing room. We put on our dresses; and, being unable - to walk, we had to hop on one leg going to the operating room. - After one hop we had to rest. Dr. Oberheuser did not allow - anybody to help us. When we arrived at the operating room quite - exhausted, Dr. Oberheuser appeared and told us to go back - because a change of dressing would not take place that day. I - could not walk, but somebody, a prisoner whose name I do not - remember, helped me to get back to the room.” (_Tr. p. 822._) - -At least five human lives were sacrificed in the sulfanilamide -experiments, while an additional six were shot after having survived the -operations. All the surviving victims suffered terrible pains and were -crippled for life. Nevertheless, the experiments were not even -scientifically successful. The results, as reported by Gebhardt and -Fischer at the Third Conference of the Consulting Physicians of the -Wehrmacht at the Military Medical Academy in Berlin in May 1943, were -not adopted, and medical directives were issued which required the -continued use of sulfanilamide. (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 3, -Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10._) The sulfanilamide experiments -were entirely unnecessary, since similar results could have been -achieved by the treatment of wound infections of German soldiers -normally contracted during the course of the war. (_Tr. pp. 3334, -3338._) - -Gebhardt does not seriously contend that the experimental subjects were -volunteers. He admitted that he did not know whether the women -consented. He testified he was not interested in that. He left it to the -“legal authorities.” He did not discuss this matter with Himmler. (_Tr. -p. 4214._) By legal authorities, Gebhardt meant Himmler who, as he said, -“had the power to execute thousands of people by a stroke of his pen.” -(_Tr. p. 4025._) Gebhardt, however, showed no interest whatever in the -moral or legal character of that power. At one point in his testimony, -he stated that the subjects were nonvolunteers forced to submit to the -experiments by the State. (_Tr. p. 4064._) At still another point, they -were “more or less volunteers, condemned persons.” (_Tr. p. 4021._) - -Gebhardt’s defense, if it can be dignified with that word, is rather -that the Polish women had been condemned to death for participation in a -resistance movement and that by undergoing the experiments, voluntarily -or otherwise, they were to have their death sentences commuted to some -lesser degree of punishment whereby they would at least not be executed. -This was no bargain reached with the experimental subjects; their wishes -were not consulted in the matter. It was, according to Gebhardt, left to -the good faith of someone unnamed to see to it the death sentence was -not carried out on the survivors of the experiments. Certainly Gebhardt -assumed no responsibility, or even interest, in this matter. - -The prosecution points out, in connection with this alleged defense, -that the proof shows that the experimental subjects who testified before -this Tribunal were never so much as accorded a trial; they had no -opportunity to defend themselves against whatever crimes they were said -to have committed. They were simply arrested and interrogated by the -Gestapo in Poland and sent to a concentration camp. They had never so -much as been informed that they had been _marked for_, not sentenced to, -death. (_Tr. p. 831._) Article 30 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws -and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Hague Convention expressly -provides that even a spy “shall not be punished without previous trial.” -The alleged defense of Gebhardt is accordingly without merit. - -Gebhardt would have the Tribunal believe that _but for_ the experiments -all these Polish girls would be dead; that he preserved the evidence now -being used against him. Nothing could be further from the truth. There -is no proof in the record that these women would have been executed if -they had not undergone the experiments. The witness Maczka is living -proof of the contrary. She was arrested for resistance activities on 11 -September 1941, and shipped to Ravensbrueck on 13 September. (_Tr. p. -1433._) She was not an experimental subject yet she lives today. -Substantially all the Polish experimental subjects arrived in -Ravensbrueck in September 1941. (_Tr. pp. 788, 817, 840._) These girls -had not been executed by August 1942 when the experiments began. Indeed, -it was a surprise to Gebhardt, according to his testimony, that they -were used at all since during July 1942 the experiments were conducted -on men. There were some 700 Polish girls in that transport. (_NO-877, -Pros. Ex. 228_; _Tr. p. 4216._) There is no evidence that a substantial -number were ever executed even though most of them were not experimented -on. - -No, the proof has shown beyond controversy that these Polish women -_could not have been legally executed_. The right to grant pardons in -cases of death sentences was exclusively vested in Hitler by a decree of -1 February 1935, Reich Law Gazette [RGBl], I, page 74. (_NO-3070, Pros. -Ex. 531._) On 2 May 1935, Hitler delegated the right to make _negative_ -decisions on pardon applications to the Reich Minister of Justice. -(_NO-3071, Pros. Ex. 532._) On 30 January 1940 (_RGBl, I, p. 399_), -Hitler delegated to the Governor General for the occupied Polish -territories the authority to grant pardons and to make denying decisions -in pardon matters for the occupied Polish territories. (_NO-3072, Pros. -Ex. 533._) By edict, dated 8 March 1940, VOB1 GGP I p. 99, the Governor -General of occupied Poland ordered with reference to the execution of -the right to pardon in the case of death sentences that: - - “The execution of a death sentence pronounced by a regular - court, a special court or a police court martial _shall take - place only when my decision has been issued not to make use of - my right to pardon_.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-3073, Pros. Ex. - 534._) - -Assuming _arguendo_ that the experimental subjects had all committed -substantial crimes, that they were all properly tried by a duly -constituted court of law, that they were legally sentenced to death, it -is still clear from the decrees set forth above that these women could -not have been legally executed until such time as the Governor General -of occupied Poland had decided in each case not to make use of his -pardon right. There has been no proof that the Governor General had ever -acted with respect to pardoning the Polish women used in the -experiments, or, for that matter, any substantial number of those not -used in the experiments. - -The only reason these 700 Polish women were transported from Warsaw and -Lublin to Ravensbrueck was because the Governor General had not approved -their execution. Otherwise they would have been immediately executed in -Poland. At the very least, these women were entitled to remain -unmolested so long as the Governor General took no action. He may never -have acted or, when he did, he may have acted favorably on the pardon. - -The affidavit of Schiedlausky, the camp doctor at Ravensbrueck, shows -that the Governor General had not turned down a pardon when the -experiments started. He said on page four of the original: - - “Polish women who had been sentenced to death by court martial - and who were awaiting execution, after their sentences had been - approved by the Governor General, were chosen as subjects.” - (_NO-508, Pros. Ex. 224._) - -At still a later point, on page 15 of the original, he said: - - “During my tour of duty at Ravensbrueck, I estimate that about - 25 women were executed by shooting. They were exclusively Polish - women, who were already prisoners, _whose sentences were only - approved after a long time by the Governor General_.” [Emphasis - added.] - -Schiedlausky was in Ravensbrueck from December 1941 until the middle of -August 1943. During that long period of time only 25 of over 700 Polish -inmates were made eligible for execution by action of the Governor -General. Who is to say that the majority of these 700 Polish women did -not live through the war even though they did not undergo the -experiments? Certainly it was incumbent on the defense to prove the -contrary by a preponderance of the evidence. This it did not do by any -evidence. - -The defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser cannot claim that they -believed in good faith that the Polish women could have been legally -executed. Even the camp doctor Schiedlausky knew that the Governor -General had to approve the execution. Moreover, the large number of 700 -women being sentenced to death at this early stage of the war was enough -to put any reasonable person on notice that something was wrong. - -Additionally, the uncontradicted evidence proves that survival of the -experiments was no guarantee whatever of avoiding execution in any -event. _At least six of the experimental subjects were executed after -having survived the experiments._ (_Tr. pp. 1449, 797, 845, 863._) The -names of the Polish girls who were shot were Pajaczkowska, Gans, -Zielonka, Rakowska, Sobolewska, and Gutek. (_NO-873, Pros. Ex. 226_; -_NO-861, Pros. Ex. 232_.) It was not a question of experimentation _or_ -execution but experimentation _and_ execution. - -Indeed, in February 1945, an effort was made to execute all the -experimental subjects. They were ordered to report to one block and -remain there. They were informed that they would be transferred to the -Gross-Rosen concentration camp, but it was common knowledge that -Gross-Rosen was already in the hands of the Allies. They, therefore, -knew that they were going to be executed and so took different -identification numbers and hid themselves. This was possible because of -disorganization in the camp. (_Tr. pp. 1450-1, 862-3_; _NO-876, Pros. -Ex. 225_; _NO-877, Pros. Ex. 228_.) - -If one takes the case of the defense at its face value, the Tribunal is -in effect asked to rule that it is legal for military doctors of a -nation at war to experiment on political prisoners of an occupied -country who are condemned to death, to experiment on them in such a way -that they may suffer death, excruciating pain, mutilation, and permanent -disability—all this without their consent and in direct aid of the -military potential of their enemy. There is no valid reason for limiting -such a decision to civilian prisoners; the experiment would certainly -have been no worse had it been performed on Polish or American prisoners -of war. It is impossible to consider seriously the ruling being sought -for by the defense. - - c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR - DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_ - - * * * * * - - _The Sulfanilamide Experiments_ - -Of all medical experiments forming the subjects of the indictment, the -experiments for testing sulfanilamides were undoubtedly the most -directly connected with the war. The problem of wound infection is one -with which every nation at war must concern itself especially in modern -warfare. This problem is not only one of great importance to the life -and health of the individual wounded soldier, but it may have a decisive -effect on the strategical position and on the outcome of the war itself -through the resultant gaps in the ranks. Already the First World War -showed that the majority of soldiers do not die on the battlefield -itself and that in most cases death is not the direct result of a wound, -but that the heavy losses must be attributed to infection of wounds -received. These experiences have been confirmed in the Second World War -and the special conditions prevailing in Russia and the climatic -conditions due to the winter there have shown even more than in the -First World War that wound infection was a medical and tactical problem -of the highest importance for the troops and their health. As regards -details, I refer to statements made in this connection on the witness -stand by several defendants in these proceedings. - -Consequently, it could not come as a surprise that in this war, too, -efforts were made to deal with wound infection not only by using -surgical measures, but that a way was sought to prevent the formation -and spreading of bacterial infections or at least to confine them within -reasonable limits by using chemical preparations. - -Such efforts seemed the more called for as the war in the East not only -meant an immense strain on the resources in material and personnel in -general, but also in view of the fact that especially the supply of the -army troops and the Waffen SS with medical officers and, above all, with -trained field surgeons became more and more difficult. Had it been -possible to assist the field medical officers at the front and at the -main dressing stations with a reliable and effective chemo-therapeutic -preparation against bacterial wound infection, progress of vast -importance would have been achieved. - -On the other hand, however, it was impossible to overlook the fact that -the introduction of a chemo-therapeutic preparation which did not -operate safely involved a certain amount of danger to an effective -medical care of the wounded and consequently to the war potential of the -wounded and consequently to the war potential of the German Wehrmacht -and its striking power. In his lecture on the chemo-therapy of wound -infection as delivered before the First Conference East of the -Consulting Specialists on 18 May 1943, which I submitted as part of the -report dealing with this conference, (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 1, -Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6._) Professor Dr. Rostock referred to -the great danger of chemo-therapy, i. e., the possibility “of making -negligent physicians careless in the surgical aspect of wound dressing, -since they may place a certain trust in chemo-therapy.” - -This warning was all the more in order since, at that time there was not -only complete uncertainty as regards the effects of sulfanilamides, but -also because there was a divergence in opinions as to the efficacy of -this preparation. It has been clearly shown by the evidence that, in -spite of close observation of the effects of sulfanilamides in peace -time and in war, it was impossible to answer this question. Opinions -were very much divided. While some were convinced of the efficacy of -these preparations in connection with wound infections, and ascribed -extraordinarily good results to them, others were of the opinion that -these chemical preparations could at the best be used as a supplement -and that if used by themselves, they did not have the properties to -prevent bacterial infection resulting from combat wounds. With regard to -the details I refer to the statements of the defendants Karl Brandt, -Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, and Fischer and to Gebhardt Exhibits 6, 7, -and 10 as submitted by me during the hearing of the evidence. - -In this respect, it is highly interesting to review the scientific -discussions of the consulting specialists as contained in the report on -the First Conference East on 18 and 19 May 1942. (_Gebhardt, Fischer, -Oberheuser 1, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6._) These discussions -which took place prior to the sulfanilamide experiments comprising the -subject of the indictment give a true picture of the situation as it was -at that time with regard to the efficacy of sulfanilamides. - -In this respect we are able to distinguish three sharply defined groups. -In the group which rejected the chemo-therapeutic treatment of wound -infection, Geheimrat Professor Sauerbruch was the leader. He -emphatically voiced the opinion that these chemical preparations tend to -obscure surgical work and to lead to perfunctory treatment. He requested -that the preparations should be critically tested, that is to say, the -test should be made by surgeons experienced in general surgery. - -In the other camp there were surgeons who claimed to have obtained -extraordinarily favorable results in the chemo-therapeutical treatment -of bacterially infected wounds. Among them was Dr. Krueger, the Berlin -professor of surgery, who claimed to have observed a favorable effect of -sulfanilamide in as many as 5,000 cases. - -To the third group belonged the surgeons, bacteriologists, and -pathologists who took the view that nothing definite could be said as -yet as to the effects and the efficacy of sulfanilamides as agents in -the fight against bacterially infected wounds and that further tests -along these lines would have to be made. - -Thus it can be said that after the experiences of the Russian winter -campaign of 1941-1942, the fight against bacterial wound infections, and -the question of the efficacy of the sulfanilamides had become a -military-medical and medical-tactical problem of the first importance, -about which opinions differed widely. A solution of this problem was the -more urgent as an answer had to be found quickly, and on the other hand -the fact was not to be disregarded that the experiences gained during -nearly 10 years of peace and war in clinics as well as in laboratories -were insufficient to answer this question. - - _The Order for the Execution of these Experiments_ - -The evidence has shown that the order to ascertain the effectiveness of -the sulfanilamides by experiments on human beings was given directly by -the Head of State and Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht. Hitler’s order -was not at first submitted by Himmler to the defendant Gebhardt, but to -Dr. Grawitz, Reich Physician of the SS and police. - -However, the evidence showed further that another circumstance arose -which from the point of view of time at least caused the order for these -experiments to be given, viz, the death of the Chief of the Reich -Security Main Office, General of the Waffen SS Reinhardt Heydrich, who -in May 1942 was assassinated in Prague. For the details I refer to the -testimony of Gebhardt in the witness box on this matter. Heydrich’s -death is connected with the experiments themselves only insofar as, at -that time, the charge was leveled that Heydrich’s life could have been -saved if sulfanilamides, and especially a certain sulfanilamide -preparation, had been administered to the wounded man in sufficient -quantities. The whole problem of sulfanilamide therapy came to the fore -once more in this one case, and then in such an obvious manner that the -Head of State himself gave the order to clarify by way of all-out -experiments the question which for a long time had been of general -importance for the fighting troops at the front. - -Within the scope of this evaluation of evidence, it is irrelevant to -enter into the details which resulted in the experiments being carried -out by the defendant Gebhardt himself. Against the strict order of the -Reich Physician SS Grawitz, Gebhardt carried out the experiments not by -deliberately inflicting bullet wounds but by causing an infection while -observing all possible precautionary measures. - -It was further shown by the evidence that the experiments were started -with 15 habitual criminals who had been sentenced to death and who had -been transferred from the concentration camp Sachsenhausen to -Ravensbrueck. In view of the fact that this part of the experiment is -not a subject of the indictment, it seems to be unnecessary to enter -into this matter. It should, however, be kept in mind that at the -conference on 1 June 1942, at which the conditions for the experiments -were determined in detail—the defendant Gebhardt has described this -conference in detail and I am referring to this—it was understood that -the experiments should be carried out with the male habitual criminals -who had been sentenced to death and who were to be pardoned in case of -survival. - - _The Experimental Arrangements for the Sulfanilamide Experiments_ - -It was shown by the evidence that the experiments for testing the -effectiveness of the sulfanilamides were carried out in three groups. -The first group included 15 men (habitual criminals). This group has -nothing to do with the charges of the indictment and it is therefore -superfluous to enter into this matter more closely. - -The second group included 36 female prisoners who had been members of -the Polish Resistance Movement and who, for this reason, had been -sentenced to death by the German court martial in the General -Government. This second group was divided into 3 subgroups of 12 -experimental persons each. As to the particulars of the provisions for -the experiments, I refer to the testimony of the defendants Gebhardt and -Fischer in the witness box. Contrary to the first group, contact -substances were used in this second group to accelerate the process of -infection. The contact substances were inserted into the open wound -together with the germs. Sterile and pulverized glass and sterile wood -particles were used as contact substances. These contact substances took -the place of earth and uniform particles and were to produce war-like -conditions for the wounds, without, however, producing at the same time -the general dangers created by infection of the wound by earth and parts -of clothing. - -As in the case of the first group, staphylococci, streptococci, and gas -gangrene bacilli were used as agents. But the contention of the -indictment that tetanus germs were also used is incorrect. On the -contrary, the evidence has proved that the treatment of tetanus did not -come within the scope of these experiments. There was all the less -reason for this as it was realized long ago by German military surgery -that the sulfanilamide preparations are not suitable for the effective -prevention of traumatic tetanus. Here I refer to the directives for the -chemo-therapeutical treatment of wound infection which were issued at -the First Working Conference East of the Consulting Specialists in May -1943 (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 1, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser -Ex. 6_)—that is prior to the performance of the sulfanilamide -experiments charged in the indictment. In these directives it is -expressly pointed out that the outbreak of traumatic tetanus cannot be -prevented by means of the sulfanilamides and that tetanus anti-toxin has -to be administered as usual. - -During the presentation of evidence, only the witness Dr. Maczka -maintained that tetanus was actually used in one individual case. This -witness did not make her own observations of the case but drew -conclusions based exclusively on the pathological picture presented by -one of the experimental subjects according to her statements. In view of -the fact that even according to the testimony of this witness tetanus -bacilli were employed only in one individual case, the assertion of this -witness can hardly be taken as a true representation of the facts, for -if it had really been the intention of the defendant Gebhardt to -determine the effect of sulfanilamides on tetanus too, one experimental -subject would certainly not have been sufficient, and more experiments -would have been necessary before a final decision regarding this -question could possibly have been made. - -The third group consisted of 24 experimental subjects who were not -treated with any sort of contagion—unlike the procedure applied to the -second group—but only had part of the muscle ligatured. The defendants -Gebhardt and Fischer have given detailed evidence regarding these new -experimental arrangements, how they originated, what considerations had -to be regarded, and what part was played by SS Reich Physician Dr. -Grawitz. With regard to these details I refer to the testimony of the -defendants in the witness box. - -The experimental subjects were treated with sulfanilamides as described -by the defendants in the witness box. A few persons were not treated -with sulfanilamides but were used as control subjects. But that did not -mean that these persons were not treated at all. As the evidence has -proved, all experimental subjects were treated, namely by surgical -measures if the sulfanilamides did not prove effective against the -inflammation. For this reason too the experimental subjects to whom -sulfanilamides were applied, and where the inflammation did not pass -away by itself, were given direct surgical treatment under observance of -the generally recognized principles of surgery, particularly as -developed in Germany by Gebhardt’s teacher Professor Dr. Lexer. This -direct surgical treatment resulted in the scars which the court has seen -on the experimental subjects questioned as witnesses. As explained by -Professor Dr. Alexander, the expert produced by the prosecution, these -scars are the result not of the bacteriological infection but of the -operations performed in order to eliminate this infection. In the -prosecution case, four experimental subjects were called to give -evidence. In addition, the prosecution submitted a series of affidavits -given by other persons used as experimental subjects. The statements of -the four witnesses questioned in court coincide largely with the -testimony given by the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer -themselves in the witness box. For this reason alone it appears -expedient and sufficient for the pronouncement of a just sentence and -for the establishment of the true facts to base the sentence exclusively -on the testimony of these four witnesses together with the statements of -the defendants themselves. This is not only in accordance with the -principle of direct and oral proceedings in court prevailing in any -modern criminal procedure and which should not be departed from without -urgent reason, but also such handling of the case seems suitable because -the statements of the four witnesses are identical essentially so that -they themselves, together with the statements given by the defendants, -can be regarded as a safe basis for a finding—apart from one point -which I shall go into later. In addition, the affidavits submitted by -the prosecution not only differ in essential points from the statements -made by the witnesses in court, but are inconsistent and contradictory -in themselves as well. This is shown, above all, by the fact that in -several of these affidavits contentions are quite obviously made which -are not based on personal and factual observation, but have become known -to these witnesses by hearsay. The affidavits, moreover, fail to -represent the circumstances in clear chronological order, which makes -the whole matter all the more doubtful, as it was proved by the evidence -that in the Ravensbrueck camp experiments were obviously also performed -by other physicians with whom the defendant in this case had no -connection. - -Considerable doubts also exist regarding the statements made by the -witness Dr. Maczka. The prosecution has submitted two affidavits given -by this witness as part of its evidence. When questioned in court, this -witness could not maintain the most incriminating contentions which -appeared in the two affidavits. Under these circumstances, the court has -to consider whether it regards the statements of this witness as -sufficiently reliable to enter into the judgment. I would answer this -question in the negative, not only because she had to revoke the most -essential points of her previous affidavits, but because a large part of -her testimony was based not on her own observations, but either on -information obtained from other prisoners or on conclusions drawn by -her. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - -Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page -NO-228 206 Affidavit of defendant Fischer, 371 - 19 November 1946, concerning - sulfanilamide experiments - conducted in the concentration - camp Ravensbrueck. -NO-472 234 Affidavit of the defendant 376 - Fischer, 21 October 1946, - supplementing his affidavit - concerning sulfanilamide - experiments. -NO-1080 A, E, F 219 A, E, F Exposures of the witness Maria 901 - Kusmierczuk who underwent - sulfanilamide and bone - experiments while an inmate of - the Ravensbrueck concentration - camp. (_See Selections from - Photographic Evidence of the - Prosecution._) -NO-1082 A, C 214 A, C Exposures of the witness Jadwiga 903 - Dzido who underwent - sulfanilamide and bone - experiments while an inmate of - the Ravensbrueck concentration - camp. (_See Selections from - Photographic Evidence of the - Prosecution._) - - _Defense Documents_ - - Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document - Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from affidavit of Dr. 377 - Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20 Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14 - Oberheuser 21 March 1947. - Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from report on the First 377 - Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6 Conference East of Consulting - Oberheuser 1 Specialists on 18 and 19 May - 1942 at the Military Medical - Academy, Berlin. - Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extracts from report on the 378 - Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10 Third Conference East of - Oberheuser 3 Consulting Specialists on 24 - to 26 May 1943 at the Military - Medical Academy, Berlin. - - _Testimony_ - -Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Jadwiga Dzido 381 -Extracts from the testimony of the prosecution expert witness Dr. 386 - Leo Alexander -Extracts from the testimony of defendant Gebhardt 388 - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-228 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 206 - - AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT FISCHER, 19 NOVEMBER 1946, CONCERNING - SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMP - RAVENSBRUECK - - AFFIDAVIT - -I, Fritz Ernst Fischer, having been duly sworn, depose and state under -oath: - -I am a doctor of medicine, having been graduated from the University of -Hamburg. I passed my state examination in 1936. On 13 November 1939 I -was inducted into the Waffen SS and after having served with a combat -division as medical officer, I was hospitalized and then assigned to the -SS hospital at Hohenlychen, as assistant surgeon. - -In addition to my normal duties as surgeon at the SS hospital at -Hohenlychen, I was ordered by Professor Gebhardt to begin medical -experiments in my capacity as assistant surgeon to Professor Gebhardt on -or about 12 July 1942. The purpose of the proposed experiments was to -determine the effectiveness of sulfanilamide, which I was informed at -that time was a matter of considerable importance to military medical -circles. - -According to the information which I received from Professor Gebhardt, -these experiments were directed initially by the Reich Leader SS and the -Reich Physician Dr. Grawitz. - -Professor Gebhardt instructed me, before the operations were undertaken, -on the techniques to be followed and the procedure to be employed. The -persons who were to be the subjects of these experiments were inmates of -the concentration camp at Ravensbrueck who had been condemned to death. - -The administrative procedure which was followed in obtaining the -subjects for the experiments was established by Professor Gebhardt with -the camp commandant at Ravensbrueck. After the initial arrangements had -been made, it was the general practice to inform the medical officer at -Ravensbrueck as to the date on which a series of experiments was to be -begun and the number of patients who would be required, and then he took -the matter up with the commandant of the camp, by whom the selections of -subjects were made. Before an operation was undertaken, the persons who -had been selected in accordance with this procedure were given a medical -examination by the camp physician to determine their suitability for the -experiments from a medical standpoint. - -The first of the series of experiments involved five persons. The -gangrenous bacterial cultures for use in the experiments were obtained -from the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. The procedure followed in -the operations was as follows: The subject received the conventional -anesthetic of morphine-atropine, then evipan ether. An incision was made -5 to 8 centimeters in length and 1 to 1½ centimeters in depth, on the -outside of the lower leg in the area of the peronaeus longus. - -The bacterial cultures were put in dextrose, and the resulting mixture -was spread into the wound. The wound was then closed and the limb -encased in a cast, which had been prepared, which was lined on the -inside with cotton so that in the event of swelling of the affected -member the result of the experiment would not be influenced by any -factor other than the infection itself. - -The bacterial cultures used on each of the five persons varied both as -to the type of bacteria used and the amount of culture used. - -After the initial operations had been performed, I returned to -Ravensbrueck each afternoon to observe the progress of the persons who -had been operated on. No serious illnesses resulted from these initial -operations. I reported the progress of the patients to Professor -Gebhardt each night. - -When the five persons first operated on were cured, another series of -five was begun. The surgical procedure and the post-operative procedure -was the same as in the initial experiments, but the bacterial cultures -were more virulent. The results from this series were substantially the -same as in the first and no serious illnesses resulted. - -Since no inflammation resulted from the bacterial cultures used in the -first two series of operations, it was determined, as a result of -correspondence with Dr. Mrugowsky, the Chief of the Hygiene Institute of -the Waffen SS, and conversations with his assistant, to change the type -of bacterial culture in the subsequent operations. Using the new -culture, two more series of operations were performed, each involving -five persons. - -The difference between the third and fourth series was in the bacterial -cultures used. The Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS prepared them from -separate combinations of the three or four gangrene cultures which were -available. In the third and fourth series, more pronounced infection and -inflammation were discernible at the place of incision. Their -characteristics were similar to a normal, local infection, with redness, -swelling, and pain. The circumference of the infection was comparable in -size to a chestnut. Upon the completion of the fourth series, the camp -physician informed me that the camp commandant had instructed him that -male patients would no longer be available for further experiments, but -that it would be necessary to use female inmates. - -Accordingly, five women were prepared for the operation, but I did not -operate on them. I reported the change of situation to Professor -Gebhardt and suggested that in view of these circumstances, it would be -desirable to stop the experiments. He did not adopt this suggestion, -however, and pointed out that it was necessary for me as an officer to -carry out the duties which had been assigned to me. - -The experiments, however, were interrupted for a period of 2 weeks, -during which Professor Gebhardt told me he had discussed the matter in -Berlin and had been instructed to carry on the experiments, using Polish -female prisoners who had been sentenced to death. In addition, he -instructed me to speed up the experiments since the Reich Physician, Dr. -Grawitz, intended to go to Ravensbrueck soon to test the results of the -experiments. Accordingly, I went to Ravensbrueck and operated on the -female prisoners. - -Since the infections which resulted from the first four series of -experiments were not typical of gangrenous battlefield infections, we -communicated with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS to determine -what steps could be taken more nearly to simulate infections caused by -battle. As a result of this correspondence and a conference at -Hohenlychen presided over by Professor Gebhardt, it was decided to add -tiny fragments of wood shavings to the bacterial cultures, which would -simulate the crust of dirt customarily found in battlefield wounds. - -As a result of this conference, three series of operations were -performed, each involving 10 persons, one using the bacterial culture -and fragments of wood, the second using bacterial culture and fragments -of glass, and the third using the culture plus glass and wood. - -About two weeks after these new series were begun, Dr. Grawitz visited -Ravensbrueck. Professor Gebhardt introduced him to me and explained to -him the general nature of the work. Professor Gebhardt then left, and I -explained to Dr. Grawitz the details of the operations and their -results. Dr. Grawitz, before I could complete my report on the -procedures used and the results obtained, brusquely interrupted me and -observed that the conditions under which the experiments were performed -did not sufficiently resemble conditions prevailing at the front. He -asked me literally, “How many deaths have there been?” and when I -reported that there had not been any, he stated that that confirmed his -assumption that the experiments had not been carried out in accordance -with his directions. - -He said that the operations were mere flea bites and that since the -purpose of the work was to determine the effectiveness of sulfanilamide -on bullet wounds it would be necessary to inflict actual bullet wounds -on the patients. He ordered that the next series of experiments to be -undertaken should be in accordance with these directions. That same -evening, I discussed these orders of Dr. Grawitz with Professor Gebhardt -and we both agreed that it was impossible to carry them out, but that a -procedure would be adopted which would more nearly simulate battlefield -conditions without actually shooting the patients. - -The normal result of all bullet wounds was a shattering of tissue, which -did not exist in the initial experiments. As a result of the injury, the -normal flow of blood through the muscle is cut off. The muscle is -nourished by the flow of blood from either end. When this circulation is -interrupted, the affected area becomes a fertile field for the growth of -bacteria; the normal reaction of the tissue against the bacteria is not -possible without circulation. - -This interruption of circulation usual in battle casualties could be -simulated by tying off the blood vessels at either end of the muscle. - -Two series of operations, each involving 10 persons, were begun -following this procedure. In the first of these, the same bacterial -cultures were used as were developed in the third and fourth series, but -the glass and wood were omitted. In the other series, streptococci and -staphylococci cultures were used. In the series using the gangrenous -culture a severe infection in the area of the incision resulted within -24 hours. - -Eight patients out of ten became sick from the gangrenous infection. -Cases which showed symptoms of an unspecific or specific inflammation -were operated on in accordance with the doctrine and manner of septic -surgery. The Lexer doctrine formed the basis of the procedure. The -technique is that an incision in the area of the gangrene is made, from -healthy tissue to healthy tissue on either side. The wound and fascian -corners were laid open, the gangrenous blisters swabbed, and a solution -of H_{2}O_{2} (hydrogen peroxide) was poured over them. The inflamed -extremity was immobilized in a cast. With most patients it was possible -to improve the gangrenous condition of the entire infected area in this -manner. - -In the series in which banal cultures of streptococci and staphylococci -were used, the severe resultant infection with accompanying increase in -temperature and swelling did not occur until 72 hours later. Four -patients showed a more serious picture of the disease. In the case of -these patients, the normal professional technique of orthodox medicine -was followed as outlined above, and the inflamed swelling split. Due to -the slight virulence of the bacteria it was possible in the case of all -patients except one to prevent the threatened deadly development of the -disease. - -The incisions were made on the lower part of the leg only in all series -to make an amputation possible. It was not made on the upper thigh -because then no area for amputation would remain. However, in this -series the inflammation was so rapid that there was no remedy and no -amputations were made. - -Since after the tying up of the circulation of the muscles, a very -severe course of infection was to be expected, 5 grams of sulfanilamide -were given intravenously in the amount of 1 gram each, beginning 1 hour -after the operation. After the wound was laid open to expose all its -corners, sulfanilamide was shaken into the entire area and the area was -drained by thick rubber tubes. - -The infection normally reached an acute stage over a period of 3 weeks, -during which time I changed the bandages daily. After the period of 3 -weeks the condition was normally that of a simple wound which was -dressed by the camp physicians rather than by me. - -The procedure prescribed for the post-operative treatment of the -patients was to give them three times each day 1 cc. of morphine, and -when the dressings were changed, to induce an esthesia by the use of -evipan. - -In all the series of experiments, except the first, sulfanilamide was -used after the gangrenous infection appeared. In each series two persons -were not given sulfanilamide as a control to determine its -effectiveness. When sulfanilamide and the bacteria cultures together -were introduced into the incision no inflammation resulted. - - * * * * * - -My behavior towards all patients was very considerate, and I was very -careful in the operations to follow standard professional procedure. - -In May 1943, on the occasion of the Fourth Conference of the Consulting -Physicians of the Wehrmacht, a report was made by Professor Gebhardt and -myself as to these operations. This medical congress was called by -Professor Handloser, who occupied the position of Surgeon General of the -Armed Forces, and was attended by a large number of physicians, both -military and civilian. - -In my lecture to the meeting I reported on the operations frankly, using -charts which demonstrated the technique used, the amount of -sulfanilamide administered, and the condition of the patients. This -lecture was the focal point of the conference. Professor Gebhardt spoke -about the fundamentals of the experiments, their performance and their -results, and then asked me to describe the technique. He began his -lecture with the following words: “I bear the full human, surgical, and -political responsibility for these experiments.” - -This lecture was followed by a discussion. No criticism was raised. I am -convinced that all the physicians present would have acted in the same -manner as I. - -Subsequent to my repeated urgent requests, I went to the front as -surgeon immediately after this conference. Only after I was wounded did -I return as a patient to Hohenlychen. I never entered the Ravensbrueck -camp again. I protested vigorously against these experiments on human -beings, endeavored to prevent them, and to limit their extension after -they had been ordered. In order not to be forced to participate in these -experiments, I repeatedly volunteered for front-line service. Insofar as -it was in my power, I tried to dissuade Doctor Koller and Doctor -Reissmayer from performing these experiments. I declined habilitation at -the University of Berlin because I felt that it might result in my being -obliged to carry on additional experiments at Ravensbrueck. After I -succeeded in scientific discoveries of the highest practical importance, -that is, the solution of the cancer problem and its therapy, I did not -communicate this fact to Professor Gebhardt and did not publish this -work in order not to be ordered again to carry out experiments. - - FRITZ ERNST FISCHER - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-472 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 234 - - AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFENDANT FISCHER, 21 OCTOBER 1946, SUPPLEMENTING HIS - AFFIDAVIT CONCERNING SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS - - * * * * * - -3. At the conference of May 1943, which I described on page 12 of my -affidavit (last paragraph) the following officials were present to the -best of my recollection: Dr. Paul Rostock as chairman of the conference; -Dr. Siegfried Handloser, who was then the Chief of the Medical Service -of the German Armed Forces, who had sent out the invitations to the -meeting; Professor Karl Brandt, who sat in the center of the front row; -Dr. Leonardo D. Conti, the Reich Health Leader; Professor Dr. -Sauerbruch; Dr. Frey; and Professor Heubner. The Medical Service of the -Luftwaffe was represented by Dr. Hippke, who was the Chief of the -Medical Service of the Luftwaffe; and by Dr. Oskar Schroeder. The -Medical Service of the Waffen SS was represented by its chief, Dr. Karl -Genzken. Dr. Helmut Poppendick, who was the Chief of Staff of the Reich -Physician SS and Police, and Dr. Grawitz were also present. - - * * * * * - -5. It was made perfectly clear during the speeches made by Dr. Gebhardt -and myself that the experiments were conducted on inmates of a -concentration camp. - -6. Six months after this, the 10th anniversary of the hospital at -Hohenlychen was celebrated. Dr. Karl Brandt, Dr. Siegfried Handloser, -Dr. Leonardo D. Conti, and Professor Dr. Sauerbruch were invited to the -celebrations. - -7. When the sulfanilamide experiments started, I was told by Professor -Gebhardt, my military and medical superior, that these experiments were -being carried out by order of the Chief of the Medical Office of the -Wehrmacht and the Chief of the State Medical Office, with the initial -order from Hitler, and I must therefore carry out these orders. - -8. Dr. Herta Oberheuser and Dr. Schiedlausky assisted me in the -sulfanilamide experiments. - -9. As a result of these experiments, three people died. - - [Signed] FRITZ ERNST FISCHER - - TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER - DOCUMENT 21 - GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 20 - - EXTRACT FROM AFFIDAVIT OF DR. KARL FRIEDRICH BRUNNER, 14 MARCH 1947 - -I only heard of the sulfanilamide experiments on human beings at -Ravensbrueck after their conclusion through the public report made by -Professor Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer before the Third Conference East of -Consultant Specialists of 24 and 26 May 1943 at the Military Medical -Academy, Berlin. I attended this conference as Stabsarzt in the army -from a military reserve hospital in Berlin. Later on I read a report in -the directives. Professor Dr. Gebhardt did not speak to us about this -point subsequently. On the other hand, the existence of this -sulfanilamide experiment was known and was not kept secret, although -even foreigners were continuously to be found among the assistants, as, -for instance, the Swiss surgeon, Dr. Meyer, during my time. - - TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER - DOCUMENT 1 - GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 6 - - EXTRACT FROM REPORT ON THE FIRST CONFERENCE EAST OF CONSULTING - SPECIALISTS ON 18 AND 19 MAY 1942 AT THE MILITARY MEDICAL ACADEMY, - BERLIN - - * * * * * - - _Directives for the chemo-therapy of wound infections_ - -The treatment of war wounds with sulfanilamide preparations in order to -combat wound infections seems to have prospects. In stock now in the -medical stores are: prontalbin-marfanil powder, prontosil, -neo-uleron-albucid, eubasinum, sulfapyridine-cibazol, and eleudron -pills. - -Traumatic tetanus cannot be prevented by these preparations; tetanus -antitoxin must therefore be given as usual. - -Chemotherapeutics are not a safe precaution against gas oedemata. The -collection of further experiences in this field is especially desirable. - -When treating war wounds, an operative arrangement of the wound must -first be made by removing the dead tissue and opening all cavities of -the wound. Then the remedy is applied with a powder distributor or with -dredging boxes, in dosages of from 5-20 grams according to the size of -the wound. This is repeated whenever a change of dressing is necessary. -Independently of the change of dressing, and spread evenly over the day, -the patient is given 8 grams on the first day, 6 grams on the second -day, 5 grams on the third day and on each of the fourth, fifth, and -sixth days, 4 grams of sulfanilamide preparations per os (if necessary, -rectal or intravenous injections). Then the drug treatment is -discontinued and started again if necessary. The earlier this treatment -is begun the better are its chances. - -Local treatment with the available sulfanilamide powders together with -an internal treatment with albucid, cibazol, eleudron, eubasinum, -globucid (particularly for gas oedema), marfanil-prontalbin, protosil is -suggested. - -If, in rare cases, secondary reactions occur such as nausea, vomiting, -diarrhea, buzzing in the ears, headaches, skin rashes, or icterus, these -remedies must be discontinued at once. A blood transfusion may be -useful. - - * * * * * - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, - OBERHEUSER DOCUMENT 3 - GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 10 - - EXTRACTS FROM REPORT ON THE THIRD CONFERENCE EAST OF CONSULTING -SPECIALISTS ON 24 TO 26 MAY 1943 AT THE MILITARY MEDICAL ACADEMY, BERLIN - - * * * * * - -5. SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General, Professor Gebhardt, and F. -Fischer. - - _Special Experiments on Sulfanilamide Treatment_ - - CONCLUSIONS - - “1. The development of suppuration on the soft parts caused by - bacteriae cannot be prevented, even if sulfanilamides are - applied immediately, locally, or internally. - - “2. It could not be proved that the course of an inflammatory - illness caused by aerobic organisms on abscesses and phlegmons - of the limbs was influenced by sulfanilamides. We were of the - impression that combined gas gangrene therapy took a milder - course under the influence of sulfanilamides. - - “3. Surgical measures are indispensable for a successful - treatment of inflammations.” - -_Additional Remarks_ - -The sprinkling of sulfanilamide powder on wounds can be injurious, if, -by so doing, the fundamentals of surgery are infringed, if, for -instance, the powder basis is not dissolved by the tissue fluids, and if -the discharge of secretions is hampered by coagulation. The wounds -treated with sulfanilamide powder show a slight tendency to exudation. - -_Hypothesis of Functions_ - -The inflammation on the mesodermal soft parts shows a tendency towards -necrosis at an early stage. The necrosis is the seat of the bacterial -culture. Its surroundings show thrombosed vessels. Access to it by -chemo-therapeutic reagents is very difficult. - - * * * * * - - _Directives for the Application of Sulfanilamides_ - -_Experiments_ (_Gebhardt-Fischer_) showed the following results: Even -the immediate internal and external application of sulfanilamide -preparations cannot prevent a suppuration of the soft parts due to -ordinary suppurative organisms. It could not be proved that the course -of the inflammatory disease caused by anaerobions is influenced by -sulfanilamides. The sulfanilamides seemed to have an easing effect on -the course of combined gangrene therapy. - -_Disorders caused by sulfanilamides_ (_Randerath_) are relatively rare. -They occur directly as liver disorders including acute yellow liver -atrophy, as kidney disorders, and as agranulocytosis. Therefore, as far -as is possible under front-line conditions, the white and red blood -count should be controlled. The decrease of the body temperature caused -by an infection of the central regulatory system may be looked upon as -an indirect disorder, so that the temperature curve permits no -conclusions as to the development of the wound infection. Furthermore, -local powder treatment may lead to an occasional increase in the depth -of the wound infection. Direct injury to the tissue at the spot where -the preparations were applied was not observed. - -_The endolumbal application of the sulfanilamides_ (_Mueller_) must also -be rejected for the treatment of meningitis, since it leads to serious -disturbances in the region of the spinal cord and may result in -paralysis. - -_The clinical discourse_ (_Frey_) emphasized the decrease of optimistic -and the increase of critical opinions. The clinical doctor considers the -principal disorders to be anorexia, nausea, and increasing exhaustion. -Early application in the wound itself is essential for the efficacy. The -enteral or parenteral inducing of sulfanilamide drugs cannot prevent -wound infections, but can favorably influence its course. - -_The following rules for practice therefore result_: All surface wounds, -that is, grazing shot wounds, sulcus-shaped wounds and large gaping -wounds of the soft parts should be sprinkled as soon as possible with -sulfanilamide powder. The powder treatment is of no use if the depths of -the wound are not reached. It is ineffective to powder the small wounds -caused by the penetration and exit of the bullet. The powdering of the -skin is senseless and may cause eczema. Deeper wounds must be treated in -the quickest and most thorough manner. After this, the wound can be -additionally treated with sulfanilamide powder which must reach the -deepest cavities. It is not advisable to powder granulating wounds. - -If the powder treatment cannot be applied during the first hours or does -not seem to suffice, a pororal application of sulfanilamides should take -its place or be performed supplementarily. Front-line conditions will -not always allow intravenous injections. According to the danger of a -wound infection, the wound should be treated for a short time with large -doses of sulfanilamides (6-10 grams during 3-4 days, not more than a -total of 50 grams). On the whole, small doses are insufficient and -therefore have no influence on the course of an infection, but if -applied too long they may be injurious. Suitable preparations are -preferably eleudron, cibazol, and globucide. If possible, the treatment -should be applied by a medical officer. - -Wounds endangered by gas oedema—and this means all large and deep -muscle wounds—should, in addition to the local and oral treatment with -sulfanilamide, also be treated with gangrene serum. At subsequent -operations, for example resection of the ribs, empyema of the chest, -secondary sutures, and late amputations, the new wound caused by the -operation may be powdered adequately with sulfanilamides when bleeding -has stopped. - -The thoroughness of the surgical wound treatment should in no way be -lessened even by the additional application of sulfanilamides. - -Abdominal gunshot wounds can also be treated with sulfanilamide powder -(about one tablespoon) or the sulfanilamide may be induced into the -abdominal cavity in the form of an emulsion. - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS JADWIGA DZIDO[40] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - -MR. HARDY: Witness, what is your full name? - -WITNESS DZIDO: Jadwiga Dzido. - -Q. Do you spell that J-a-d-w-i-g-a, last name spelled D-z-i-d-o? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Witness, you were born on 26 January 1918? - -A. Yes. - -Q. You are a citizen of Poland? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Have you come here to Nuernberg voluntarily to testify? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Would you kindly tell the Tribunal your present home address? - -A. Warsaw, Garnoslonska 14. - -Q. Witness, are you married? - -A. No. - -Q. Are your parents living? - -A. No. - -Q. What education have you received? - -A. I finished elementary school and high school at Warsaw. In 1937 I -started to study pharmacology at the University of Warsaw. - -Q. Did you graduate from the University in Warsaw? - -A. No. - -Q. What did you do after you had finished school in the University of -Warsaw? - -A. I started studying pharmacology at the University, and then when I -was studying the second year, the war broke out. - -Q. What did you do after the war broke out? - -A. In 1939 I was working in a pharmacy during the holidays. - -Q. Were you a member of the Resistance Movement? - -A. In the autumn of 1940 I entered the Resistance Underground. - -Q. What did you do in the Resistance Movement? - -A. I was a messenger. - -Q. Then were you later captured by the Gestapo and placed under arrest? - -A. I was arrested by the Gestapo on 28 March 1941. - -Q. What happened to you after your arrest by the Gestapo? - -A. I was interrogated by the Gestapo in Lublin, Lukow, and Radzin. - -Q. And what happened after that? - -A. In Lublin, I was beaten while naked. - -Q. Did you then receive any further treatment from the Gestapo, or were -you released? - -A. I stayed in Lublin 6 weeks in the cellar of the Gestapo building. - -Q. Then were you sent to the Ravensbrueck concentration camp? - -A. On 23 September 1941, I was transported to the Ravensbrueck -concentration camp. - -Q. Were you told why you were sent to the concentration camp in -Ravensbrueck? - -A. No, I was not told. - -Q. Were you ever given a trial in any German court? - -A. Never. - -Q. Who sent you to Ravensbrueck concentration camp? - -A. All the prisoners in the prison at Lublin were sent there, and I went -with them. - -Q. Now will you tell the Court, Miss Dzido, in your own words what -happened to you after you arrived at Ravensbrueck? - -A. When I arrived in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp, I thought that -I would stay there till the end of the war. The living conditions in the -prison were such that we could not live there any longer. In the camp we -had to work, but in the camp it was not so dirty, and there were not so -many lice as used to be in the prison. - -Q. What work did you do in the camp, Witness? - -A. I did physical work inside or outside the camp. - -Q. Were you ever operated on in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp? - -A. I was operated on in November 1942. - -Q. Will you kindly explain the circumstances of this operation to the -Tribunal? - -A. In 1942 great hunger and terror reigned in the camp. The Germans were -at the zenith of their power. You could see haughtiness and pride on the -face of every SS woman. We were told every day that we were nothing but -numbers, that we had to forget that we were human beings, that we had -nobody to think of us, that we would never return to our country, that -we were slaves, and that we had only to work. We were not allowed to -smile, to cry, or to pray. We were not allowed to defend ourselves when -we were beaten. There was no hope of going back to my country. - -Q. Now, Witness, did you say that you were operated on in the -Ravensbrueck concentration camp on 22 November 1942? [See photographs, -pp. 898-908.] - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, on 22 November 1942, the day of this operation, will you kindly -tell the Tribunal all that happened during that time? - -A. That day the policewoman, camp policewoman, came with a piece of -paper where my name was written down. The policewoman told us to follow -her. When I asked her where we were going, she told me that she didn’t -know. She took us to the hospital. I didn’t know what was going to -happen to me. It might have been an execution, transport for work, or -operation. - -Dr. Oberheuser appeared and told me to undress and examined me. Then I -was X-rayed. I stayed in the hospital. My dress was taken away from me. -I was operated on 22 November 1942 in the morning. A German nurse came, -shaved my legs, and gave me something to drink. When I asked her what -she was going to do with me she did not give me any answer. In the -afternoon I was taken to the operating room on a small hospital trolley. -I must have been very exhausted and tired and that is why I don’t -remember whether I got an injection or whether a mask was put on my -face. I didn’t see the operating room. - -When I came back I remember that I had no wound on my leg, but a trace -of a sting. From that time I don’t remember anything till January. I -learned from my comrades who lived in the same room that my leg had been -operated on. I remember what was going on in January, and I know that -the dressings had been changed several times. - -Q. Witness, do you know who performed the operation upon your leg? - -A. I don’t know. - -Q. Now, you say that you had dressings changed. Who changed the -dressings on your leg? - -A. The dressings were changed by Drs. Oberheuser, Rosenthal, and -Schiedlausky. - -Q. Did you suffer a great deal while these dressings were being changed? - -A. Yes, very much. - -Q. Witness, will you step down from the witness box and walk over to the -defendants’ dock and see if you can recognize anyone in that dock as -being at Ravensbrueck concentration camp during the period and during -the time that you were operated on? - -A. (Witness points.) - -Q. Will you point to the person again that you recognized, Witness? - -A. (Witness points.) - -Q. And who is that, Witness? - -A. Dr. Oberheuser. - -MR. HARDY: May we request that the record so show that the witness has -identified the defendant Oberheuser? - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The record will so show. - -MR. HARDY: Do you recognize anyone else in that dock, Witness? - -WITNESS DZIDO: Yes. - -Q. Point out who else you recognize, Witness? - -A. (Witness points.) - -Q. Who is that, Witness? - -A. This man I saw only once in the camp. - -Q. Do you know who that man is, Witness? - -A. I know. - -Q. Who is that man, Witness? - -A. Dr. Fischer. - -MR. HARDY: Will the record so show that the witness has properly -identified the defendant Fischer as being at the Ravensbrueck -concentration camp? - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The record will so show. - -MR. HARDY: Witness, do you have any other details to tell the Tribunal -about your operation? - -WITNESS DZIDO: (No answer.) - -Q. Witness, how many times were you operated on? - -A. Once. - -Q. When Dr. Oberheuser attended you, was she gentle in her treatment -toward you? - -A. She was not bad. - -Q. Witness, have you ever heard of a person named Binz in the -Ravensbrueck concentration camp? - -A. I know her very well. - -Q. Do you remember what time your friends were called to be operated on -in August of 1943? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Will you kindly tell the Tribunal some of the details there and the -names of the persons who were to be operated on? - -A. In the spring of 1943 the operations were stopped. We thought that we -could live like that till the end of the war. On the 15th of August a -policewoman came and called ten girls. When she was asked what for, she -answered that we were going to be sent to work. We knew very well that -all prisoners belonging to our transport were not allowed to work -outside the camp. The chief of the block where we were living was -forbidden under capital punishment to let us outside the camp. That’s -why we know that it was not true. We didn’t want to let our comrades out -of the block. The policewoman came, and the assistants, the overseers, -and with them Binz. We were driven out of the block into the street. We -stood there in line 10 at a time and Binz herself read off the names of -10 girls. When they refused to go because they were afraid of a new -operation and were not willing to undergo a new operation, she herself -gave her word of honor that it was not going to be an operation and she -told them to follow her. - -We remained standing before the block. Then several minutes later our -comrades ran to us and told us that SS men have been called for in order -to surround them. The camp police arrived and drove our comrades out of -the line. We were locked in the block. The shutters were closed. We were -3 days without any food and without any fresh air. We were not given -parcels that arrived in the camp at that time. The first day the camp -commandant and Binz came and made a speech. The camp commandant said -that there had never been a revolt in the camp and that this revolt must -be punished. She believed that we would reform and that we would never -repeat it. If it were to happen again, she had SS people with weapons. -My comrade, who knew German, answered that we were not revolting, that -we didn’t want to be operated on because five of us died after the -operation and because six had been shot down after having suffered so -much. Then Binz replied: “Death is victory. You must suffer for it and -you will never get out of the camp.” Three days later, we learned that -our comrades had been operated on in the bunker. - -Q. Now, Witness, how many women, approximately, were operated on at -Ravensbrueck? - -A. At Ravensbrueck 74 women were operated on. Many of them underwent -many operations. - -Q. Now, you have told us that five died as a result of the operations, -is that correct? - -A. Yes. - -Q. And another six were shot down after the operation, is that correct? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Do you know why those other six were shot, Witness? - -A. I don’t know. - -Q. Witness, were any of these victims asked to volunteer for these -operations? - -A. No. - -Q. Were any of them promised freedom if they would submit to operations? - -A. No. - -Q. When you were operated on, did you object? - -A. I could not. - -Q. Why? - -A. I was not allowed to talk and our questions were not answered. - -Q. Do you still suffer any effects as a result of the operation, -Witness? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Were you ever asked to sign any papers with respect to the operation? - -A. Never. - -Q. When did you finally leave Ravensbrueck? - -A. On 27 April 1945. - -Q. Have you ever received any treatment since you have left Ravensbrueck -in the last year? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Tell us what treatment you have received. - -A. Dr. Gruzan in Warsaw transplanted tendons on my leg. - -Q. When did he do that? - -A. On 25 September 1945. - -Q. Do you have to wear any special shoes, now, Witness? - -A. Yes, I should wear them, but I can’t afford to buy them. - -Q. What are you doing now, Witness? Are you working now, or what is your -occupation? - -A. I am now continuing my studies which I started before the war. - -Q. I see. I will ask the witness to identify these pictures. - -MR. HARDY: This is Document NO-1082_a_, _b_, and _c_. I will pass these -up to the Tribunal for your perusal. Were these photographs taken of you -in Nuernberg in the last day or two, Witness? - -WITNESS DZIDO: Yes. - -Q. Witness, would you kindly take your stocking and shoe off your right -leg, please, and will you step out to the side and show the Tribunal the -results of the operations at Ravensbrueck? (Witness complies.) That’s -all, Witness, you may sit down. - -MR. HARDY: I have no further question on direct examination, your Honor. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Is there any defense counsel who desires to -cross-examine this witness? - -DR. SEIDL (counsel for defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer): I -do not want to cross-examine the witness; however, I do not wish the -conclusion to be drawn that my clients admit all the statements made by -the witness. - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS DR. LEO - ALEXANDER[41] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - -MR. HARDY: Dr. Alexander, have you examined Miss Dzido before today? - -WITNESS DR. ALEXANDER: Yes, sir, I did, on several occasions during the -last 3 days. - -Q. During your examination, did you have X-rays made of the patient’s -legs? - -A. I did, sir. - -MR. HARDY: At this time I will introduce Document NO-1091 which is the -X-ray of the witness, Miss Dzido. We will pass two copies to the -Tribunal and one copy to the Secretary General. Dr. Alexander, in the -course of your diagnosis of these X-rays, will you kindly diagnose this -X-ray in English and then repeat in German for the benefit of the -defendants? - -WITNESS DR. ALEXANDER: Yes, sir. - -Q. Doctor, will you identify that X-ray which carried Document NO-1091? - -A. Yes. This is the X-ray which included the lower two-thirds of the -thigh bone, the femur, and the knee joint, and— - -MR. HARDY: I offer this X-ray as Prosecution Exhibit 215. - - * * * * * - -Q. Doctor, this X-ray you are referring to now is Document NO-1092? - -A. This is Document NO-1091. The arrow points to the osteoporotic -atrophy of the tibia. Document NO-1092 is the X-ray of the leg. It shows -the fibula which is the smaller of the two larger bones of the leg, -about in the middle between the area just mentioned under the bracket -called “B”. On the side, looking toward the tibia is the -osteoperiostitis of the periosteum. This group of marks is particularly -severe in the smaller area which I have marked with the bracket “A”, -which indicates a smaller area of the shaft of the tibia within the -larger area of the disturbance marked as “B”. This alteration is -indicative and consists of an ordinary inactive Coxa, which in view of -the osteoperiostitis of the periosteum was probably an osteomyelitis -process. However, there is no active osteomyelitis at the present -examination of the right foot. In pictures 1093 and 1094, it shows -arthritic changes of the cuniform navicula joints with narrowing of the -joint spaces and increased marginal sclerosis. This has been marked in -the X-ray with an arrow pointing to the joint. The other prints are the -same. The prints have come out too dark, but it shows the condition -clearly in the film. - -This arthritis is due to the immobilization of the right foot. Secondary -to the muscles and especially the paralysis of the perineal nerve. It is -evidently arthritis of an immobilization nature which one sees also by -inspection of the patient’s foot. - -Q. Doctor, can you determine from your examination—— - -A. (Interposing) 1094—have I mentioned it?—shows the same as 1093 in a -slightly different exposure. The marks are the same pointing to the most -marked arthritis between the cuniform navicular joints. - -Q. Doctor, in your opinion, from your examination of this patient can -you determine what was the purpose of the experiment? - -A. It appears that in this experiment a highly infectious agent was -implanted, probably without the addition of a bacteria static agent such -as sulfanilamide, and for that reason the infection got out of hand and -became very extensive. - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT GEBHARDT[42] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - -DR. SEIDL: The experiments on Polish internees were carried out in such -a way that, first of all, three series of experiments were performed on -three groups of 12 persons each. Is that correct? - -DEFENDANT GEBHARDT: Yes. What I wanted to solve by means of this second -experimental group was the task given me in my orders, namely, the -testing of the drugs prescribed. I definitely hoped in these -experiments, which produced gangrene, that if there was anything in the -sulfanilamide drugs, which I had reason to hope, then the advantages -connected with one or the other drug would become apparent, and I would -be able to discontinue the experiments. Of course, I could not stop at -the initial instructions. I really had to go on to a localized and -definite infection, and for that there is an internationally known -precept, not discovered by us, which is to produce a _locus minoris -resistentia_—that is to say, the place of least resistance—where germs -combine with contact substances. So we did not insert dirt, glass, or -earth, cruelly; the dirt in the wound was represented by sterile glass -silicate; soil and textiles which would enter a wound were replaced by -us through sterile cellulose, finely ground. You all know that if you -cut yourself and a nonsterile piece of glass remains in the wound, if -you do not move the spot, it will heal with the glass inside without any -aggravated symptoms. The only effect it has is to produce a catalysis -for the germs and a local obstruction to the flow of blood, and possibly -to damage a few cells slightly. In other words, we produced inflammation -in the safest way possible for such an experiment. That is an -unquestionable scientific train of thought in this sphere. We proceeded -in just that manner and in addition, we gave our sulfanilamide, or -zeibazol 1., eleutron, and nitron. Two control persons, however, were -not without protection, because they were taken care of in the old -established way. - -Now, don’t suggest that I should know the schedule or that there was -some schedule regarding the supply of sulfanilamide used. A schedule is -always bad in medicine because it is no longer original. One thing is -characteristic, however, with sulfanilamides and that is that you give a -big dose at the beginning, and here there is a question of whether it is -correct to introduce it locally or to leave it open. Someone might mix -it, somebody else might have a different combination and that is how we -did it. I would be a bad scientist if I were to write down for you now -that I knew exactly that they were all given in a certain manner on the -third day, or that they are all like this and this now. It states -expressly in Thomas’ statement, of course, that any prearranged table -for the administration is wrong, and that we also cannot prescribe the -correct way to apply these drugs. It was obviously clear that there was -a strong impression made by sulfanilamides and, even in the first group, -we were astonished to find a certain result, which is useful for the -idea as such, but not for practical purposes. Among other things we -immediately and simultaneously sprinkled a mixture of germs together -with sulfanilamide powder into the wound. That was the only exception -made in the first group and it didn’t produce any results at all. Now, -if I were a bad scientist then I would have assumed that that, in -itself, was a success. No matter whether it was the ultrasepsis or the -powder we had used, I would have been satisfied, and I would have said, -“Everybody now has to take a little bag of sulfanilamide along with him -and powder the wounds with it immediately because we know that if they -are inserted simultaneously into the wound—the germ and the drug—then -there will be no inflammation.” Only in complete ignorance of wound -conditions and war conditions could one adopt that point of view. The -disadvantage of the sulfanilamide bag is that a man who is badly shot -isn’t in a position to act; he would be lying somewhere badly wounded -and not be able to do anything. On the other hand, of course, the -position is that the surface of the wound can easily be powdered, but of -course not right down to the very bottom of the wound, and we know -particularly well that sulfanilamides when applied wrongly in this way -have caused injury. - -Q. The second group consisted of the 36 women, 3 times 12 women? - -A. Yes. Infection, plus contact materials. - -Q. Is it true that the Reich Physician SS, Dr. Grawitz, on 3 September -1942, when inspecting Ravensbrueck, demanded that the experimental -conditions had to be made more severe in order to create conditions -similar to wartime conditions? - -A. At the beginning of September, on the basis of my report, I was -called to Grawitz to report on the results which might be expected. -Grawitz, and as I shall explain later, Stumpfegger, came to me at the -beginning of September. Since Grawitz was coming to Ravensbrueck I -turned up on the same day, so that Fischer could demonstrate the -patients under my protection. That is the impression probably created -repeatedly by the testimony of witnesses; they have to wait for a time, -and then I say “These are the patients whom I operated on.” I assume the -same description was given each time. Grawitz was able to prove to me -that the effects were circumscribed and not of a war nature. And he was -able to prove to me that I had obtained no clear medical information, -only assumptions, and the clinical conditions resulting might perhaps be -expected after surgery at home. For another reason, which can be seen -from the documents, the argument became rather violent. Grawitz turned -to Fischer, who presented the cases to him. At any rate he then said, -unfortunately, that a speedy clarification had to be reached and that -wounds similar to combat wounds had to be created, that is, a gunshot -wound infected by earth and matter. Of course, I did not accept these -conditions and I looked for some way to get the experiment into my own -hands so that, using all safeguards, a higher degree of infection might -be brought about, and the cases might still remain under my control. I -did not want to give up and say, “I have not reached any conclusion,” -thereby impliedly giving permission for wounds similar to combat wounds -to be inflicted elsewhere. And so we arrived at the idea of tying off -the arteries of the third group, which is also a customary means of -bringing about a locus minoris resistentiae in international -experimental technique. - -Q. You did not carry out the order then? - -A. No. - -Q. Then how were the experiments continued in order to create severe -local inflammation in warlike wounds? - -A. We kept to our old technique, the infusion, that is an incision on -the outer side of the calf far from the joint, where it is not under -pressure, and where the cast does not hurt it. In other words, we chose -the most suitable place according to all medical considerations. Then we -administered the infection in a place where the circulation of the blood -had been reduced. - - * * * * * - -Q. What do you know about the deaths, and why was there no amputation in -these cases? - -A. I believe that I can remember the three deaths very well. But I only -remember three—I have always testified that—with all the things that -have happened in the meantime and all the patients I have taken care of. -It was not that Fischer or I overlooked an amputation, and it is -certainly not true that an amputation can save the life of the patient -in all cases of gangrene. As I remember the case histories, the most -serious patient had a large abscess on the hip. Probably the -corresponding glands had been affected. The infection on the calf and -the abscess on the hip—what can I amputate? One can amputate when the -infection is limited to the calf. We did not have such cases because we -forced the infection to the place where we wanted it, but we were not -able to prevent the infection spreading to a different area and running -into the blood vessel as does happen occasionally. There are infections -of the veins, and then the patient dies suddenly, and it is a definite -risk to perform an operation because the power of resistance is on the -borderline, hanging by a hair. If we perform such major operations to -save the patient’s life, then you may assume that we would have -undertaken an amputation, or would you assume that a surgeon of my -experience does not know when he has to amputate? Unfortunately that is -the first thing that an operative surgeon like Fischer learns in -wartime, to amputate in time. - -As far as I remember, the deaths were from an abscess of the glands, an -inflammation of the veins, an inflammation of the blood vessels, and one -died from general sickness, in spite of all transfusions. This happens -in cases of infection when there is no possibility of stopping the -infection by local surgery. But one cannot conclude that any medical -measures which should have been taken were overlooked, because just by -seeing a case history from a distance one cannot decide that at such and -such a moment the patient should have been operated on. I am convinced -that in these three cases which Fischer reported to me exactly, which I -saw, and in which the therapy was discussed, that we certainly did not -overlook anything. As far as one can humanly say, we did what we -considered necessary. - -I wanted to publish this result or to report it to the public from the -beginning. Therefore, it was obvious from the very beginning, if you did -not assume that I had any humane or surgical motives, that I did -everything in order to be able to publish the results. - ------ - -[40] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20 -December 1947, pp. 838-847. - -[41] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20 Dec. -1946, pp. 848-855. - -[42] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 4, 5, 6, -7, 10 Mar. 47, pp. 3931-4256. - - 6. BONE, MUSCLE AND NERVE REGENERATION AND BONE TRANSPLANTATION - EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, -Oberheuser, and Fischer were charged with special responsibility for and -participation in criminal conduct involving experiments on bone, muscle, -and nerve regeneration and experiments on bone transplantation (par. 6 -(F) of the indictment). During the trial, the prosecution withdrew this -charge in the case of Rudolf Brandt. On this charge the defendants -Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer were convicted and the defendants Karl -Brandt, Handloser, and Rostock were acquitted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on these experiments is -contained in its final brief against the defendant Gebhardt. An extract -from this brief is set forth below on pages 392 to 396. A corresponding -summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been -selected from the final plea for the defendant Gebhardt. It appears -below on pages 396 to 399. This argumentation is followed by selections -from the evidence on pages 400 to 418. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_ - - _Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration, and Bone Transplantation - Experiments_ - -These experiments were carried out in the Ravensbrueck concentration -camp during the same period of time and on the same group of Polish -inmates as the sulfanilamide experiments. (_Tr. p. 1458._) - -The defendant Fischer made the following statement about these -experiments in his affidavit: - - “After the arrival of Doctor Stumpfegger from general - headquarters in the fall of 1942, Professor Gebhardt declared - before some of his co-workers that he had received orders to - continue with the tests at Ravensbrueck on a larger scale. In - this connection, questions of plastic surgery which would be of - interest after the end of the war should be clarified. Doctor - Stumpfegger was supposed to test the free transplantation of - bones. Since Professor Gebhardt knew that I had worked in - preparation for my habilitation at the university on - regeneration of tissues, he ordered me to prepare a surgical - plan for these operations, which, after it had been approved he - directed me to carry out immediately. Moreover, Doctor Koller - and Doctor Reissmayer were ordered to perform their own series - of experiments. Professor Gebhardt was also considering a plan - to form the basis of an operative technique of remobilization of - joints. Besides the above, Doctors Schulze and Schulze-Hagen - participated in this conference. - - “Since I knew Ravensbrueck I was ordered to introduce the new - doctors named above to the camp physician. I was specially - directed to assist Doctor Stumpfegger, since, as physician on - the staff of Himmler, he would probably be absent from time to - time. - - “I had selected the regeneration of muscles for the sole reason - because the incision necessary for this purpose was the - smallest. The operation was carried out as follows: - - “Evipan and ether were used as an anaesthetic, and a 5 - centimeter longitudinal incision was made at the outer side of - the upper leg. Subsequent to the cutting through the fascia, a - piece of muscle was removed which was the size of the cup of the - little finger. The fascia and skin were enclosed in accordance - with the normal technique of aseptic surgery. Afterwards a cast - was applied. After 1 week the skin wound was split under the - same narcotic conditions, and the part of the muscle around the - area cut out was removed. Afterwards the fascia and the sewed-up - part of the skin were immobilized in a cast.” (_NO-228, Pros. - Ex. 206_; _Tr. p. 774_.) - -The responsibility of the defendant Gebhardt for these experiments is -also proved by the affidavit of Oberheuser. She stated: - - “The experiments with bone transplantations were carried out, as - far as I can remember, at the end of 1942 and beginning of 1943 - by Dr. Stumpfegger of Hohenlychen. I helped Dr. Stumpfegger in - the same way as I helped Dr. Fischer with the sulfanilamide - experiments, and as I have described already in paragraph 4 of - this affidavit. Before the operation I had to examine, as in the - other case, the condition of health of the selected persons. The - operations consisted of the removal and transplantation of a - piece of the bone from the tibia. Fifteen to twenty persons were - used for these experiments. - - “The persons necessary for these experiments were requisitioned - by Dr. Schiedlausky from the camp commander. - - “Dr. Karl Gebhardt was in charge of the sulfanilamide - experiments and bone transplantations. I do not know whether he - himself performed operations of this type. But I know that all - these experiments were performed under his direction and - supervision and upon his instructions. He was assisted by the - doctors already mentioned, Dr. Fischer and Dr. Stumpfegger, and - also by Drs. Schiedlausky and Rosenthal. Also only healthy - Polish prisoners were used for these experiments. - - “I cannot remember that a single one of the experimental - subjects used was pardoned after the completion of the - experiments.” (_NO-487, Pros. Ex. 208._) - -The witness Maczka, a graduate of the Medical School of the University -of Krakow and a practicing physician, testified that in the course of -her duties as X-ray technician in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp -she had occasion to observe approximately 13 cases in which experimental -operations were performed on the bones of inmates. There were three -kinds of bone operations—fractures, bone transplantations, and bone -splints. Some of the Polish girls were operated on several times. In the -case of Krystyna Dabska, Maczka took X-ray pictures of both legs and -discovered that small pieces of the fibulae had been removed. In the -case of one leg the periosteum had also been taken out. Zofia Baj was -operated on in a similar manner. Janina Marczewska and Leonarda Bien -were subjected to the bone fracture experiments. The tibia was broken in -several places and in the case of one of the girls, clamps were applied -while in the case of the other they were not. These operations impeded -the locomotion of the girls operated on. Bone incision operations were -performed on Barbara Pietczyk, a Polish girl 16 years old. She was -operated on six times. During the first operation incisions were made in -each tibia. During a later operation pieces of the tibia were cut out -where incisions had been previously made. Maczka took an X-ray of the -pieces of tibia that were removed. As a result of these bone operations, -Maczka observed the development of two cases of osteomyelitis, Maria -Grabowska and Maria Cabaj. (_Tr. pp. 1445-7._) - -A rather large group of muscle experiments were performed. Here again -multiple operations were carried out on the same subject. Gledziewjowska -was operated on most frequently. During the first operation certain -muscles were removed and during subsequent operations additional pieces -were cut out, always at the same place, so that the legs got thinner and -weaker all the time. (_Tr. p. 1447._) - -Transplantation of whole limbs from one person to another was also -carried out. Maczka testified that about 10 feeble-minded inmates were -selected, taken to the hospital and prepared for operation. She knew -personally that at least two of these persons were operated on. One case -was a leg amputation. Following this operation, the experimental subject -was killed and placed in a special room where the dead were kept. Maczka -was able to observe the corpse and saw that there was only one leg. In -the second case an abnormal woman was operated on by Dr. Fischer. When -he left the operating room he carried with him a bundle wrapped up in -linen about the size of an arm. He took this away with him. The prison -nurse, Quernheim, informed Maczka that the whole arm with shoulder blade -was removed from this woman. (_Tr. p. 1448._) - -The amputation of the arm and shoulder blade mentioned by Dr. Maczka -obviously refers to the transplantation performed on the patient Ladisch -at Hohenlychen. As to this, the defendant Fischer stated in his -affidavit as follows: - - “As a disciple of Lexer, Gebhardt had already planned long ago a - free heteroplastic transplantation of bone. In spite of the fact - that some of his co-workers did not agree, he was resolved to - carry out such an operation on the patient, Ladisch, whose - shoulder joint was removed because of a sarcoma. - - “I and my medical colleagues urged professional and human - objections up until the evening before the operation was - performed, but Gebhardt ordered us to carry out the operations. - Dr. Stumpfegger, in whose field of research this operation was, - was supposed to perform the removal of the scapula at - Ravensbrueck and had already made initial arrangements for it. - However, because Professor Gebhardt required Doctor Stumpfegger - to assist him in the actual transplantation of the shoulder to - the patient Ladisch, I was ordered to go to Ravensbrueck and - perform the operation of removal on that evening. I asked - Doctors Gebhardt and Schulze to describe exactly the technique - which they wished me to follow. The next morning I drove to - Ravensbrueck after I had made a previous appointment by - telephone. At Hohenlychen I had already made the normal initial - preparation for an operation, namely, scrubbing, etc., merely - put on my coat, and went to Ravensbrueck and removed the bone. - - “The camp physician who was assisting me in the operation - continued with it while I returned to Hohenlychen as quickly as - possible with the bone which was to be transplanted. In this - manner the period between removal and transplantation was - shortened. At Hohenlychen the bone was handed over to Professor - Gebhardt, and he, together with Doctor Schulze and Doctor - Stumpfegger, transplanted it.” (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._) - -Gebhardt admitted that he, together with Stumpfegger, personally -performed the bone transplantation operation on Ladisch. He testified -further that Fischer only removed the scapula, shoulder blade, from the -Polish female inmate at Ravensbrueck. (_Tr. p. 4235._) It is impossible -to raise the arm above the horizontal if the scapula has been removed. -(_Tr. p. 4235._) Gebhardt further admitted that Stumpfegger reported to -him on the bone experiments in Ravensbrueck concentration camp. (_Tr. p. -4235._) - -The affidavit of Gustawa Winkowska corroborates the testimony of Maczka -concerning the transplantation of whole limbs and establishes that the -experimental subjects were later killed. (_NO-865, Pros. Ex. 231._) - -The witness Karolewska was a subject in both the sulfanilamide and bone -experiments. (_Tr. pp. 833, 836-7._) She was operated on a total of six -times. The first operation was conducted on 14 August 1942 by Fischer. -(_Tr. p. 819._) Gebhardt inspected her early in September. (_Tr. p. -821._) She was sent back to her block on 8 September 1942, but was -unable to walk and remained in bed for a week. On 16 September 1942 she -was again taken to the hospital and operated on for the second time by -Fischer. (_Tr. pp. 821-2._) She left the hospital on 6 October 1942 and -remained in bed for several weeks. Her leg did not heal until June 1943 -(_Tr. pp. 822-3_). She filed a written protest with the camp commander, -together with other experimental subjects in February 1943. In August -1943 she was operated on literally by force in the bunker at -Ravensbrueck. Both her legs were cut open. These operations were carried -out on five other Polish girls under indescribably filthy conditions. On -15 September 1943 a further operation was performed on her right leg by -a doctor from Hohenlychen. Two weeks later her left leg was operated on -and pieces of the shinbone were removed. She stayed in the hospital for -6 months—until the end of February 1944. (_Tr. pp. 828-9._) Karolewska -identified the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser as having -participated in the experiments on her. (_Tr. pp. 818, 830._) - -The defendant Fischer participated in these experiments until at least -23 February 1943. On that date he carried out a second operation on -Zofia Baj. (_NO-871, Pros. Ex. 227._) - -The most disgusting series of operations were those carried out in -August 1943 in the bunker. The Polish girls selected had revolted and -refused to report to the hospital. The barrack block in which they had -barricaded themselves was then surrounded by male guards who carried -these women off forcibly to the camp prison, known as the Bunker, where -they were held down by these male guards and forcibly anaesthetized -without any pre-operative care, and with their bodies still in a filthy -condition from walking around the camp. The experimental subject -Piasecka stated in her affidavit as follows: - - “I resisted and hit Trommer in the face and called him a bandit. - He called some SS male guards who threw me on the floor and held - me down while ether was poured over my face. There was no mask. - I fought and resisted until I lost consciousness. I was - completely dressed and my legs were filthy dirty from walking in - the camp. As far as I know my legs were not washed. I saw my - sister during this time unconscious on a stretcher, vomiting - mucous.” (_NO-864, Pros. Ex. 229_) - -Piasecka stated that this operation was carried out by Dr. Villmann who -was an assistant doctor at Hohenlychen. A few weeks later two other -assistant doctors to Gebhardt came and operated on her right leg. -(_NO-864, Pros. Ex. 229._) - -In his testimony Gebhardt attempted to disassociate himself from these -experiments. He admitted however that he received information from -Stumpfegger about the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 4082, 4087-9._) Stumpfegger -was a former assistant of Gebhardt’s and he stayed at Hohenlychen during -the course of these experiments. Fischer assisted Stumpfegger and -Gebhardt. (_Tr. pp. 4230, 4090._) It is further established by Fischer’s -own affidavit that the plan for the experiments was worked out with the -knowledge and approval of Gebhardt. - - c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_[43] - -_The Experiments Concerning Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone - Grafting_ - -The defendant Gebhardt is also charged in the indictment with particular -responsibility in the experiments, whose object according to the -indictment was the examination of the conditions under which the -regeneration of bones, muscles, and nerves resulted, and under what -conditions the grafting of bones was possible. - -With regard to the general reasons why there can be no question of -guilt, I refer to the statements I have already made in connection with -the sulfanilamide experiments. These experiments, too, were occasioned -by conditions of war and were to open up new ways of treating seriously -wounded persons. - -The evidence, however, has shown that the defendant Gebhardt, with a -single exception, had nothing to do with these experiments. These -experiments, insofar as they were concerned with the regeneration and -grafting of bones, were carried out by Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Stumpfegger. -It is correct that Dr. Stumpfegger was assistant doctor in the clinic in -Hohenlychen before the war, and to that extent subordinate to its chief -doctor, Dr. Gebhardt. Dr. Stumpfegger, however, left in the early years -of the war, and in the year 1942 became consulting physician to Reich -Leader SS Himmler and later consulting physician to Hitler. The -experiments carried out by him in Ravensbrueck were carried out on his -own responsibility, and upon direct orders from the Reich Leader SS -Himmler. Dr. Stumpfegger at that time was neither under the military nor -the medical supervision of the defendant Karl Gebhardt. For the -remainder, Dr. Stumpfegger limited himself to carrying out experiments -in the removal and grafting of so-called bone splinters, the exact -number of which can no longer be determined now, but which certainly did -not exceed six to eight. These were aseptic operations, which -constituted no danger to the life of the experimental subjects. The -evidence has shown that the experimental subjects from whom the bone -splinters were removed suffered no reduction in the function of their -limbs. Besides, the examination of the transplantation process of bones -achieved a research result that could not be attained from the animal -experiments because of the variety of the stipulated regeneration areas -caused by the location of the various species and for the other reasons -given by Gebhardt. - -The evidence has further shown that the experimental subjects were -members of the resistance movement who had been condemned to death and -who were in this way given an opportunity to obtain a pardon, and so to -escape execution. In view of the fact that no direct responsibility for -these experiments falls on the defendant Gebhardt, it is not necessary -to go into the purpose of these experiments further at this time. It -should, however, be emphasized once more that the experiments were to -open up new possibilities in wartime surgery and restorative surgery on -the wounded. In 1944, Dr. Ludwig Stumpfegger published the results of -his experiments in the periodical for surgery the editor of which was -Geheimrat Dr. Sauerbruch (vol. 259, issue 9-12) and this article was -also made available to the public in book form. I have submitted to the -Court (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 6, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser -Ex. 9_) a review of this work in the periodical, “Clinic and Practice” -of February 1946 and refer to this for the details. - -The defendant Karl Gebhardt would certainly not have hesitated to admit -his responsibility for these experiments if he had actually been more -closely connected with them, and if the experiments had taken place at -his behest or under his medical supervision. There would have been -little reason to deny this responsibility since the experiments -concerned were completely without danger; they resulted in no reduction -of the function of the limbs, and, moreover, no fatalities occurred. -Furthermore, corresponding to the general practice in Germany, the work -of Dr. Stumpfegger under the scientific responsibility of the defendant -Gebhardt would have been made public if he had been directly concerned -with the experiments, and if they had been carried out under his -scientific supervision. Nor did the evidence prove that there were any -experiments carried out in connection with muscle and nerve regeneration -under the scientific supervision and by order of the defendant Gebhardt. -It even seems doubtful that any such experiments were ever carried out -in Ravensbrueck. The witnesses called before this court were unable to -make any statements about this matter and it may be taken for granted -that in any case the defendant Karl Gebhardt had nothing to do with -these experiments. There was no point in carrying out such experiments -as, long before the war, the surgical technique had already been -developed on scientific principles and set down in a system. It covers -plastic surgical bone regeneration but does not advocate free -transplantation. - -The only new field of scientific research taken up by Dr. Gebhardt -during the war was that of experiments connected with nerve operations. -These experiments were, however, carried out on animals by the special -order and under the scientific supervision of the defendant Gebhardt -himself. I am here referring to the affidavits given by the witnesses -Koestler (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 22, Gebhardt, Fischer, -Oberheuser Ex. 21_) and Brunner (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 21, -Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20_), and to the statements made by -the defendant Gebhardt himself on the witness stand. I am further -referring to the report of the Third Session East of the Consulting -Specialists on 24-26 May 1943 (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 3, -Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10_) which I have presented in Court -and which proves that during this session he himself and the -aforementioned witness, Dr. Koestler, spoke about grafting operations in -cases of nervous paralysis. This is the same report to which the witness -Dr. Koestler referred in his affidavit of 27 February 1947. - -Furthermore, I wish to draw the attention of this Court to the lecture -given by the defendant Gebhardt in the same report on “Gymnastic Therapy -and Mobilization of the Joints” which is also based upon clinical -experience in Hohenlychen and also has nothing whatever to do with -medical experiments on human beings. The evidence has further proved -that the defendant Gebhardt was concerned with the transplantation of -bones in one case only. This experiment was the free transplantation of -a shoulder blade from one person to another. The defendant Gebhardt has -given a detailed account of this on the witness stand and I am referring -you to his statement on this point. Generally speaking, the following -has to be added: The free transplantation of bones from one person to -another is one of the great problems of restorative surgery which has -yet to be solved. For decades, physicians have been trying to find a -solution to this problem. As early as the end of the First World War, -Geheimrat Lexer, the great teacher of the defendant Gebhardt, conducted -experiments along these lines in 23 cases, aiming at the replacement of -completely destroyed bones. The terrible injuries which occurred during -the Second World War made this problem still more urgent and it is, -therefore, understandable that in view of the progress Dr. Stumpfegger -had made in his research, he was ordered by the Reich Leader SS to make -use of this research result in the direct transplantation of bones. The -defendant Gebhardt himself did not take any steps in this direction. He -himself has stated his fundamental attitude as to this question and I -refer to his own statements. Only in one case did he give his approval, -viz: when Dr. Stumpfegger carried out the experiment of transplanting a -shoulder blade. The order to do this was given by the Reich Leader SS. -This experiment was justified in this particular case as it took place -for the benefit of a patient in serious danger. The experimental person -from whom the shoulder blade was taken was also a member of the -resistance movement and she, too, thus escaped execution. Furthermore, -the shoulder blade in question belonged to a hand restricted in its -function. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - - Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page - NO-875 230 Affidavit of Mrs. Zdenka 400 - Nedvedova-Nejedla, M. D., of - Prague, concerning experimental - operations conducted on fellow - inmates at Ravensbrueck - concentration camp. - NO-861 232 Affidavit of Sofia Maczka, 16 402 - April 1946, concerning - experimental operations on - inmates of the Ravensbrueck - concentration camp. - NO-579 288 Phosphorous burns artificially 904 - inflicted on inmates of the - Buchenwald concentration camp. - (_See Selections from the - Photographic Evidence of the - Prosecution._) - - _Defense Documents_ - - Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page - Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from “Clinic and 405 - Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 9 Practice”, weekly journal for - Oberheuser 6 the practicing physician, - regarding bone transplantation. - Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extracts from affidavit of Dr. 407 - Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20 Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14 - Oberheuser 21 March 1945, concerning - scientific experiments - conducted at the clinic of - Hohenlychen. - Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from affidavit of Dr. 408 - Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 21 Josef Koestler, 27 February - Oberheuser 22 1947, concerning Dr. Gebhardt’s - activities. - - _Testimony_ - -Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Miss Karolewska 409 -Extract from the testimony of the prosecution expert witness Dr. Leo 417 - Alexander. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-875 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 230 - -AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. ZDENKA NEDVEDOVA-NEJEDLA, M. D., OF PRAGUE, CONCERNING - EXPERIMENTAL OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON FELLOW INMATES AT RAVENSBRUECK - CONCENTRATION CAMP - -1. I, Zdenka Nedvedova-Nejedla, M. D. came to Ravensbrueck concentration -camp in a transport from Auschwitz on 19 August 1943, and I worked in -the sick bay as a doctor prisoner from September 1943 until 30 May 1945. -In the beginning I worked in the Department for Contagious Diseases at -Station No. 1 and the Ambulatory. Besides this, I was in charge of -Sucking Block from the fall of 1944 until May 1945. - -2. Of the victims of experimental operations, I nursed personally Helena -Piasecka, who was suffering from chronic osteomyelitis after completed -operation of both shin bones. I knew that these operations were -performed under Professor Gebhardt’s supervision by Doctor Fischer, and -a woman, Doctor Oberheuser, from the SS Hospital Hohenlychen, but I do -not know which one of them had operated on Piasecka. The operation was -performed in the “bunker,” camp prison, where there were not even the -most primitive sanitary installations and even fewer aseptic -installations. Her general condition was good, but the defect in both -bones made her an invalid for life. Before the operation Piasecka was -completely healthy. - -3. All women on whom experimental operations had been performed were -placed in one block and they were generally known as “rabbits,” so that -I saw the effects of the operations on those women who had survived -them. In each case of abbreviation of limbs, muscular atrophy of the -highest degree set in, proving a grave injury of nerves during -operations and deep indrawn scars where parts of muscles had festered -away. - -4. From lay reports of nursing personnel without any special training, I -tried to construct the types of experimental operations. - -_a._ Culture of virulent germs (streptococci, staphylococci, maybe even -tetanus and gas phlegmon) were injected subcutaneously, intramuscularly, -and even directly into bones. These were the attempts to produce -osteomyelitis experimentally. The resulting sepsis was checked by daily -examination of the blood and urine to test the effectiveness of new -medicaments of the sulfanilamide group. - -_b._ Parts of long bones, as much as 5 centimeters (fibulae and tibiae), -were removed and in some cases replaced by metal or left without -connection. These operations were probably to prove the inability of -bone to grow without periosteum. - -_c._ High amputations were performed; for example, even whole arms with -shoulder blade or legs with osiliaca were amputated. These operations -were performed mostly on insane women who were immediately killed after -the operation by a quick injection of evipan. All specimens gained in -operations were carefully wrapped up in sterile gauze and immediately -transported to the SS hospital nearby (Hohenlychen presumably), where -they were to be used in the attempt to heal the injured limbs of wounded -German soldiers. - -5. Operations were performed on 1 Yugoslav, 1 Czech, 2 Ukrainian, 2 -German, and about 18 Polish women, of whom 6 were operated on by force -in the bunker with the help of SS men. Two of them were shot after their -operation wounds had healed. After operations, no one except SS nurses -was admitted to the persons operated on, whole nights they lay without -any assistance and it was not permitted to administer sedatives even -against the most intensive postoperational pains. From the persons -operated on, 11 died or were killed, and 71 remained invalids for life. - -6. The report mentioned in paragraphs 3 to 5 was prepared on the basis -of evidence given to me at Ravensbrueck in the autumn of 1943 by these -fellow prisoners: Sofia Maczka, M. D., Poland; Isa Siczynska, medical -student, Krakow, Poland; Jola Krzyzanowska, medical student, Krakow, -Poland; Krisa Iwanska, medical student, Krakow, Poland; Emilie Skrbkova, -medical student, Praha, Czechoslovakia; and Inka Katnarova, M. D., -Hradec Kralove, Czechoslovakia. - - * * * * * - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-861 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 232 - - AFFIDAVIT OF SOFIA MACZKA[44], 16 APRIL 1946, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTAL - OPERATIONS ON INMATES OF THE RAVENSBRUECK CONCENTRATION CAMP - - * * * * * - -Information concerning the experimental operations which took place in -Ravensbrueck concentration camp. - -The operations were carried out in the period between the summer of 1942 -and the summer of 1943. The operations were conducted in the camp -hospital, under the direction of Professor Dr. Gebhardt, SS -Brigadefuehrer. Professor Gebhardt was the head of the Hohenlychen -sanatorium at Hohenlychen (Mecklenburg). The operations were conducted -with the help of Dr. Fischer, who was Professor Gebhardt’s assistant. -There was also another assistant whose name I do not know. The following -camp doctors participated in this matter: Dr. Herta Oberheuser, Dr. Rolf -Rosenthal, Dr. Schiedlausky; all German nurses who were employed there -at the time and two German prisoners (Schutzhaftgefangene), Gerda -Quernheim and Fina Pautz, gave assistance. Polish political prisoners in -protective custody, from the transports from Warsaw and Lublin, -numbering 74, were chosen as victims. All those who were chosen were -young, healthy, and well-built women. Many were college or university -students. The youngest was 16 years of age, the oldest 48 years of age. -The operations were to be carried out for scientific purposes, but they -had nothing to do with science. They were carried out under horrible -conditions. The doctors and the assisting personnel were not trained -properly medically. Conditions were neither aseptic nor hygienic. After -operations, the patients were left in shocking rooms without medical -help, without nursing or supervision. The dressings were made according -to the whim of the doctors with unsterilized instruments and compresses. -Dr. Rosenthal, who did most of the dressings, excelled himself in -sadism. In the summer of 1943 the last operations were carried out in -the “bunker”. “Bunker” is the name of the horrible prison in the camp. -The victims were taken there because they resisted, and there in the -cell their dirty legs were operated on. This was the “scientific -atmosphere” in which the “scientific” operations were carried out. - -All operations were carried out on the leg and all under anesthetic. The -operations were divided into two main groups: - -1. Operations for infecting the patient. - -2. Experimental aseptic operations. - -The soft part of the calf of the leg was opened and the open wounds were -infected with bacteria which were introduced into the wounds. The -following were used: staphylococcus aureus, oedema malignum (clostridium -oedematis maligni), gas gangrene bacillus (clostridium perfrim gens), -and tetanus. Weronika Kraska was infected with tetanus. She died after a -few days. Kazimiera Kurowska was infected with gas gangrene bacillus; -she died after a few days. The following were infected with oedema -malignum: Aniela Lefanowicz, Zofia Kiecol, Alfreda Prus, and Maria -Kusmierczuk. The first three died after a few days; Maria Kusmierczuk -survived the infection. She was lying ill for more than a year and -became a cripple, but she is alive and is living evidence of the -experiments. Mostly pyrogen stimulants were employed. The wounds were -stitched after the infection and serious illness began. Many of the -patients were ill for months and almost all of them became cripples. - -Why did Professor Gebhardt, with his education, carry out these -experiments? To test the new drugs of the German pharmaceutical -industry; mostly cibazol and albucid were used. Even tetanus was treated -in that way. - -The results of the treatment were not checked, or if they were, it was -done in such an inadequate and superficial manner, that it was of no -value. - -The aseptic, experimental operations consisted of bone experiments, -muscle experiments, and nerve experiments. - -The bone experiments were checked by X-ray photographs. As ward -attendant I had to do all the X-ray photographs. In this way I was given -the opportunity of gaining an insight in this matter. The following were -carried out: (_a_) bone breaking; (_b_) bone transplantation; and (_c_) -bone grafting. - -_a._ On the operating table, the bones of the lower part of both legs -were broken into several pieces with a hammer, later they were joined -with clips (for instance Janiga Marczewska) or without clips (for -instance Leonarda Bien) and were put into a plaster case. This was -removed after several days and the legs remained without plaster casts -until they healed. - -_b._ The transplantations were carried out in the usual way, except that -whole pieces of the fibula were cut out, sometimes with periosteum, -sometimes without periosteum. The most typical operation of this kind -was carried out on Krystyna Dabska. - -_c._ Bone grafting. These operations were with the school of Professor -Gebhardt. During the preparatory operation two bone splints were put on -the tibia of both legs; during the second operation such bone splints -were cut out together with the attached bones and were taken to -Hohenlychen. As a supplement to the bone splint operations such -operations were also carried out on two prisoners in protective custody -who suffered from deformation of bones of the osteomyelitis type. These -two were not Poles, one of them was a German who was a Jehovah’s -Witness, Maria Konwitschka, and the other was a Ukrainian, Maria -Hretschana. It was interesting for Professor Gebhardt to see how the -diseased bones would react to such an operation. - -The muscle experiments consisted of many operations, always on the same -spot, the upper or lower part of the leg. At each further operation -larger and larger pieces of muscles were cut out. Once a small piece of -bone was planted into a muscle (this happened to Babinska). During nerve -operations parts of nerves were removed (for instance Barbara -Pytlewska). - -What problem did Professor Gebhardt and his school wish to solve by -these experiments? The problem of the regeneration of bones, muscles, -and nerves. - -Was the thing carried out? No. It was not checked at all, or only -insufficiently. I do not know what was done at Hohenlychen with those -pieces of bone, muscle, and nerves which were cut out and taken there. - -What was the fate of the patients after they left the hospital? Almost -all of the patients became cripples, and suffered very much as a result -of these operations. Even more severe was the moral torture inflicted on -them since they lived under the conviction that they would all be shot -in order that they should not be evidence of these murderous operations. -The camp authorities—Commandant Suhren, Adjutant Braeuning and Chief -Supervisor Binz—ensured through their orders that the victims should -not forget that they were condemned to death. In the meantime, six of -the patients were shot after surviving the operations. - - * * * * * - -As a supplement to these operations I am submitting a description of -“special operations” which were carried out at the same time. - -A few abnormal prisoners (mentally ill) were chosen and brought to the -operating table, and amputations of the whole leg (at the hip joint) -were carried out, or on others, amputation of the whole arm (with the -shoulder blade) were carried out. Afterwards the victims (if they still -lived) were killed by means of evipan injections and the leg or arm was -taken to Hohenlychen and served the purposes known to Professor -Gebhardt. Ten such operations, approximately, were carried out. - -During the whole of the time these operations were carried out, I was -employed as a worker in the ward and investigated this matter risking my -own life, with the idea that it was my duty, if I were saved, to tell -the truth to the world. I conclude my statement with two questions: What -kind of recompense can the world offer to those who were operated on in -such a manner? What kind of justice has the world for those who carried -out such operations? - - [Signed] DR. MACZKA, ZOFIA - Dr. med. Zofia Maczka - X-ray specialist from - Krakow. Former political - prisoner in protective - custody No. 7403 at - Ravensbrueck, now in - Stockholm, - Serafimerlasarettet, - Roentgen. - -Stockholm, 16 April 1946 - - TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER - DOCUMENT 6 - GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE - EXHIBIT 9 - - EXTRACT FROM “CLINIC AND PRACTICE”, WEEKLY JOURNAL FOR THE PRACTICING - PHYSICIAN, REGARDING BONE TRANSPLANTATION - -Editors: Dr. Herbert Volkmann and Dr. V. E. Mertens, Munich 2, -Alfonsstrasse 1 - -No. 1 Munich, February 1946 Volume 1 - -[page 12] - - _Discussions and extracts_ - -[page 14] - - _Surgery_ - -Ludwig Stumpfegger—Hohenlychen: The free autoplastic bone -transplantation in the restorative surgery of limbs—experiences and -results. - -During the past 10 years, 471 free autoplastic bone transplantations -were carried out in Hohenlychen. Recent research results clearly showed -that apart from the osteoplastic activity, a metaplastic formation of -new bone occurs in the tissue. The newly formed bone trabeculae between -transplant and old bone begin to connect with those formed in the -osteoid tissue in the seventh week, and in this way constitute the bone -connection between the graft and the original bone which have completely -grown together in the ninth week. After the twelfth week no old bone can -be detected in the entire region of the original graft, but only new -bone trabecula. The question of the ever present hematoma can be -answered in this way: a blood extravasation, lying in the gap between -the transplant and the old bone, and not being subject to pressure, -represents an adequate stimulation to the mesenchymal germinal tissue -formation, while the large hemorrhage represents a negative stimulation -and permits only a scarry connection of the transplant and the defective -stump. The periosteum is no more important than the other layers, it is -transplanted with the bone, because in connection with the bone it has -osteogenetic properties, but above all it effects a speedy supply from -the surroundings. A careful technique must be employed to spare the -tissue layers, and bleeding must be stanched. Foreign bodies in the -shape of wire slings to hold the transplant usually heal well into the -body. Firm fixation in a plaster cast safeguards the result. When the -graft has taken, a careful start with remedial exercises may be made in -the third or fourth month. The clinical use of free bone -transplantations is discussed with the help of numerous examples and -many X-ray illustrations. The first task of the bone transplant to -bridge over a gap in the bone is to provide sufficient support for the -defective stump and, therefore, it has to be fairly strong. Bone -splinters in the lower arm have roentgenologically completely taken -after 1-1½ years, those in the tibia after 1½-2 years. The free bone -transplant, some distance from the joints, has proved to be particularly -valuable with the usual dislocations of the shoulder and the hip joints. -The overlapping bone ridge prevents the bone from coming out of the -articular cavity. In the course of years, the piece lying in the soft -parts is considerably reduced, so that only a small bone ridge remains. -The graft effects a regeneration of the damaged edge of the articular -cavity and in this way prevents further dislocation. Bone transplants in -bone gaps after removal of growths are subject to special conditions of -taking. Hyperemic phenomena in the zone of the tumor edge in the form of -a mild inflammation, possibly also fermentation processes, accelerate -the taking of the transplant compared with the process in healthy -tissue. Increased local resorption processes, occasionally with -spontaneous fractures, infrequently prevail, but they again are apt to -heal well. In wounds which heal with difficulty owing to suppurative -inflammations, there is a great danger of the transplant being pushed -out. When the whole transplant region is inflamed, total sequestration -cannot be stopped. If suppuration remains localized, partial -sequestration of the transplantation must be awaited. (_German Surgical -Journal, 1944, Vol. 299, H. 9-12. H. Floercken-Frankfurt am Main._) - - TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER - DOCUMENT 21 - GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE - EXHIBIT 20 - - EXTRACTS FROM AFFIDAVIT OF DR. KARL FRIEDRICH BRUNNER, 14 MARCH 1943, -CONCERNING SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED AT THE CLINIC OF HOHENLYCHEN - - * * * * * - -I can state the following regarding the scientific experiments at the -clinic [of Hohenlychen]: It was in accordance with the principles of the -clinic and, therefore, of the chief and his deputy to collect scientific -results arrived at through clinical observations. All reports at -congresses and lectures as well as publications were based on these -results. The scientific work and research were normally determined by -the observations made on the patients. In addition to this, and in order -to clarify the question of surgical treatment of nerve injuries, -experiments on dogs were carried out in close collaboration with -Gebhardt—first by Dr. Koestler in 1939-40, later by myself from 1943 to -the end of the war. I was ordered by Dr. Gebhardt to carry out the -experiments on animals at the training and experimental station for dogs -[Hundelehr- und Versuchsanstalt], which establishment was situated -outside the concentration camp Ravensbrueck, and I was strictly -cautioned not to enter into any kind of contact with the concentration -camp itself. The animal experiments were strictly continued until the -end of the war. The results were never published because of war -conditions. - - * * * * * - -Regarding Dr. Stumpfegger, I can state that he was an assistant of the -clinic in peacetime, before I arrived. At the outbreak of war in 1939 he -joined the Waffen SS, and was then, as far as I know, from 1942 onwards -an escorting physician of Himmler. I did not see Dr. Stumpfegger on my -return to Hohenlychen in autumn 1943, nor had he any official connection -with the clinic up to the end of the war, either in a medical or in a -military sense. He did not have to report his return or departure to the -chief physician or to his deputy. His family, however, still lived at -Hohenlychen. I still met him occasionally outside the medical sphere. I -emphasize that during my presence at the clinic from 1 September 1943 up -to the end of the war, as far as I know—and finally I was directing the -clinic—no assistant was drafted from Hohenlychen to Ravensbrueck. - -I know that the specialist in pulmonary diseases, Dr. Heissmeyer, was -working as an assistant and later as chief physician in the so-called -sanatorium Hohenlychen even before Professor Gebhardt took over -Hohenlychen. This sanatorium was strictly detached from the surgical -wards of the hospital at Hohenlychen and was not under the professional -supervision of the chief physician nor of his deputy; i. e., Dr. -Heissmeyer looked after his patients without any supervision by the -surgeon, he made no reports to the chief or his deputy, he did not -participate in the daily discussions of the physicians, he had his own -staff of assistants and carried out his treatments and operations -independently; he also planned his duty journeys independently and made -these without reporting to the chief or his deputy on departure or -return. - - TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER - DOCUMENT 22 - GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE - EXHIBIT 21 - - EXTRACT FROM AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JOSE KOESTLER, 27 FEBRUARY 1947, - CONCERNING DR. GEBHARDT’S ACTIVITIES - - * * * * * - -When Professor Dr. Karl Gebhardt and I, at the Third Conference of -Consulting Specialists of the German Wehrmacht in May 1943, lectured on -surgical aid for peripheral nerve damage, we were, on the one hand, -interpreting the results of animal experiments carried out on dogs from -1938 to 1940 in the Langenbeck-Virchow Hospital, Berlin, and in the -institutes of Professor Holz (Institute for Experimental Hormone and -Cancer Research) and Professor Ostertag (Pathological Institute), and, -on the other hand, announcing surgical methods as they had been -frequently used during the previous years. - -Under the title of “Preparatory and Restorative Surgery in cases of -Peripheral Nerve Damage,” I recorded these experiences in the “German -Journal for Surgery,” volume 259, Nos. 1-4, 1943, and in my habilitation -paper (1943, University of Berlin). - -I emphasize expressly that this series of experiments was carried out -exclusively on animals. - -From 1 July 1938 to 26 August 1939 I was in the Red Cross hospital at -Hohenlychen (Department for Sport and Industrial Injuries). During the -following war years, after I was drafted into the Wehrmacht, I worked -there repeatedly for short periods. I am convinced that the medical care -there was on an especially high level and that Professor Gebhardt as -chief physician did everything possible to improve the treatment and its -results. - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS MISS KAROLEWSKA[45] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: What is your name, please? - -WITNESS KAROLEWSKA: Karolewska. - -Q. And that is spelled K-a-r-o-l-e-w-s-k-a? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Were you born on 15 March 1909 at Yeroman? - -A. I was born on 15 March 1909 in Yeroman. - -Q. You are a citizen of Poland? - -A. Yes, I am a Polish citizen. - -Q. And have you come here as a voluntary witness? - -A. Yes, I came here as a voluntary witness. - -Q. What is your home address? - -A. Warsaw, Inzynierska Street, No. 9, Flat No. 25. - -Q. Are you married? - -A. No. - -Q. Are your parents living? - -A. No, my parents are dead. - -Q. Will you tell the Tribunal what education you have received? - -A. I finished elementary school, and completed the training school for -teachers in 1928. - -Q. And what did you do between 1928 and the beginning of the war in -1939? - -A. I worked as a teacher in a children’s school in Grudenz. - -Q. And when did you leave that post? - -A. I finished my work in June 1939 and went on holiday. - -Q. And did you go back to this position after your holiday? - -A. No, I did not go back because the war broke out and I stayed in -Lublin. - -Q. And what did you do while you were in Lublin? - -A. I lived with my sister and did not work at all. - -Q. Were you a member of the Polish Resistance Movement? - -A. Yes, I was. - -Q. And what did you do in the Polish Resistance Movement? - -A. I was a messenger. - -Q. And were you ever arrested for your activity in the Resistance -Movement? - -A. I was arrested on the 13th of February 1941 by the Gestapo. - -Q. Was your sister arrested with you? - -A. Two sisters and two brothers-in-law were arrested with me on the same -day. - -Q. What happened to you after you were arrested? - -A. I was taken to the Gestapo. - -Q. And what did the Gestapo do with you? - -A. The first day the Gestapo took down my personal data and sent me to -the prison in Lublin. - -Q. And then what happened? Just go on and tell the complete story about -what the Gestapo did with you and where you went. - -A. I stayed 2 weeks in the prison in Lublin and then I was taken again -to the Gestapo. There I was interrogated and they wanted to force me to -confess what kind of work I used to do in the Resistance Movement. The -Gestapo wanted me to give them the names of persons with whom I worked. -I did not want to tell them the names and, therefore, I was beaten. I -was beaten by one Gestapo man, with brief intervals, for a very long -time. Then I was taken to a cell. Two days later, at night, I was taken -again to the Gestapo for interrogation. There I was beaten again. I -stayed in the Gestapo office one week and then I was taken back into the -prison in Lublin. I stayed in the prison till 21 September 1941. Then I -was transported with other prisoners to the concentration camp -Ravensbrueck, where I arrived on the 23d of September 1941. - -Q. Now, Witness, before you continue, will you tell the Tribunal whether -you were ever tried by any court for the crime of being a member of the -Resistance Movement? - -A. I was only interrogated by the Gestapo and I think that the sentence -must have been passed in my absence because no sentence was ever read -out to me. - -Q. All right. Will you tell the Tribunal what happened to you at -Ravensbrueck? - -A. At Ravensbrueck our dresses were taken away from us and we received -the regular prison dress. Then I was sent to the block and I stayed in -quarantine for 3 weeks. After 3 weeks we were taken to work. The work -was hard physical work. In the spring I was given other work and I was -transferred to the workshop, which was called in German “Betrieb.” The -work I did there was also very hard, and one week I had to work in the -daytime and the next week at night. In the spring the living conditions -in the camp grew worse and worse, and hunger began to reign in the camp. -The food portions were smaller. We were undernourished, very exhausted, -and we had no strength to work. In the spring of the same year, shoes -and stockings were taken away from us and we had to walk barefoot. The -gravel in the camp hurt our feet. The most tiring was the so-called -“roll calls”, which we had to stand several hours, sometimes even 4 -hours. If a prisoner tried to put a piece of paper underneath her feet, -she was beaten and ill-treated in an inhuman way. We had to stand at -attention at the roll call place and we were not allowed to move our -lips, because then we were supposed to be praying and we were not -allowed to pray. - -Q. Now, Witness, were you operated on while you were in the Ravensbrueck -concentration camp? - -A. Yes, I was. - -Q. When did that happen? - -A. On 22 July 1942, 75 prisoners from our transport that come from -Lublin were summoned to the chief of the camp. We stood outside the camp -office, and present were Kogel, Mandel, and one person whom I later -recognized as Dr. Fischer. We were afterwards sent back to the block and -we were told to wait for further instructions. On the 25th of July, all -the women from the transport of Lublin were summoned by Mandel, who told -us that we were not allowed to work outside the camp. Also, five women -from the transport that came from Warsaw were summoned with us at the -same time. We were not allowed to work outside the camp. The next day 75 -women were summoned again and we had to stand in front of the hospital -in the camp. Present were Schiedlausky, Oberheuser, Rosenthal, Kogel, -and the man whom I afterwards recognized as Dr. Fischer. - -Q. Now, Witness, do you see Oberheuser in the defendants’ dock here? - -INTERPRETER: The witness asks for permission to go near to the dock to -be able to see them. - -MR. MCHANEY: Please do. - -(Witness walks to dock and points to Dr. Oberheuser.) - -MR. MCHANEY: And Fischer? - -(Witness points to Dr. Fischer.) - -MR. MCHANEY: I will ask that the record show that the witness properly -identified the defendants, Oberheuser and Fischer. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The record will show that the witness correctly -identified the defendants Oberheuser and Fischer. - -MR. MCHANEY: Witness, you have told the Tribunal that in July 1942, some -75 Polish girls, who were in the transport from Lublin, were called -before the camp doctors in Ravensbrueck. - -WITNESS KAROLEWSKA: Yes. - -Q. Now, were any of these girls selected for an operation? - -A. On this day we did not know why we were called before the camp -doctors and on the same day 10 out of 25 girls were taken to the -hospital, but we did not know why. Four of them came back and six stayed -in the hospital. On the same day six of them came back to the block -after having received some injection, but we did not know what kind of -injection. On the 1st of August, those six girls were called to the -hospital again; those girls who received injections were kept in the -hospital, but we could not get in touch with them to hear from them why -they were put in the hospital. A few days later, one of my comrades -succeeded in getting close to the hospital and learned from one of the -prisoners that all were in bed and that their legs were in casts. On the -14th of August, the same year, I was called to the hospital and my name -was written on a piece of paper. I did not know why. Besides me, eight -other girls were called to the hospital. We were called at a time when -executions usually took place and I thought I was going to be executed -because some girls had been shot down before. In the hospital we were -put to bed and the ward in which we stayed was locked. We were not told -what we were to do in the hospital and when one of my comrades put the -question she got no answer but an ironical smile. Then a German nurse -arrived and gave me an injection in my leg. After this injection I -vomited and I was weak. Then I was put on a hospital cot and they -brought me to the operating room. There, Dr. Schiedlausky and Rosenthal -gave me the second intravenous injection in my arm. A while before, I -noticed Dr. Fischer, who left the operating theater and had operating -gloves on. Then I lost consciousness and when I revived I noticed that I -was in a proper hospital ward. I recovered consciousness for a while and -I felt severe pain in my leg. Then I lost consciousness again. I -regained consciousness in the morning, and then I noticed that my leg -was in a cast from the ankle up to the knee and I felt very great pain -in this leg and had a high temperature. I noticed also that my leg was -swollen from the toes up to the groin. The pain was increasing and the -temperature, too, and the next day I noticed that some liquid was -flowing from my leg. The third day I was put on a hospital trolley and -taken to the dressing room. Then I saw Dr. Fischer again. He had on an -operating gown and rubber gloves on his hands. A blanket was put over my -eyes and I did not know what was done with my leg but I felt great pain -and I had the impression that something must have been cut out of my -leg. Those present were Schiedlausky, Rosenthal, and Oberheuser. After -the dressing was changed I was again put in the regular hospital ward. -Three days later I was again taken to the dressing room, and the -dressing was changed by Doctor Fischer with the assistance of the same -doctors, and I was also blindfolded. I was then sent back to the regular -hospital ward. The next dressings were made by the camp doctors. Two -weeks later we were all taken to the operating theater again, and put on -the operating tables. The bandage was removed, and that was the first -time I saw my leg. The incision went so deep that I could see the bone. -We were told then that there was a doctor from Hohenlychen, Doctor -Gebhardt, who would come and examine us. We were waiting for his arrival -for 3 hours, lying on our tables. When he came, a sheet was put over our -eyes, but they removed the sheet and I saw him for a short moment. Then -we were taken back to our regular wards. On 8 September I went back to -the block. I couldn’t walk. The pus was draining from my leg; the leg -was swollen up and I could not walk. In the block, I stayed in bed for -one week; then I was called to the hospital again. I could not walk and -I was carried by my comrades. In the hospital I met some of my comrades -who were there after the operation. This time I was sure I was going to -be executed because I saw an ambulance standing outside the office, -which was used by the Germans to transport people intended for -execution. Then we were taken to the dressing room where Doctor -Oberheuser and Doctor Schiedlausky examined our legs. We were put to bed -again, and on the same day, in the afternoon, I was taken to the -operating theater and the second operation was performed on my leg. I -was put to sleep in the same way as before, having received an -injection. This time I again saw Doctor Fischer. I woke up in the -regular hospital ward, and I felt a much greater pain and had a higher -temperature. - -The symptoms were the same. The leg was swollen and the pus flowed from -my leg. After this operation, the dressings were changed by Dr. Fischer -every 3 days. More than 10 days afterwards, we were again taken to the -operating theater and put on the table; and we were told that Dr. -Gebhardt was going to come to examine our legs. We waited for a long -time. Then he arrived and examined our legs while we were blindfolded. -This time other people arrived with Dr. Gebhardt, but I don’t know their -names, and I don’t remember their faces. Then we were carried on -hospital cots back to our rooms. After this operation I felt still -worse, and I could not move. While I was in the hospital, Dr. Oberheuser -treated me cruelly. - -When I was in my room I remarked to fellow prisoners that we were -operated on in very bad conditions and left here in this room and that -we were not even given a chance to recover. This remark must have been -heard by a German nurse who was sitting in the corridor, because the -door of our room leading to the corridor was opened. The German nurse -entered the room and told us to get up and dress. We answered that we -could not follow her order because we had great pains in our legs and we -could not walk. Then the German nurse came into our room with Dr. -Oberheuser. Dr. Oberheuser told us to dress and come to the dressing -room. We put on our dresses; and, being unable to walk, we had to hop on -one leg into the operating theater. After one hop we had to rest. Dr. -Oberheuser did not allow anybody to help us. When we arrived at the -operating theater, quite exhausted, Dr. Oberheuser appeared and told us -to go back, because the change of dressing would not take place that -day. I could not walk, but somebody, a prisoner whose name I don’t -remember, helped me back to the room. - -Q. Witness, you have told the Tribunal that you were operated on the -second time on the 16th of September 1942? Is that right? - -A. Yes. - -Q. When did you leave the hospital after this second operation? - -A. After the second operation I left the hospital on 6 October. - -Q. Was your leg healed at that time? - -A. My leg was swollen up, caused me great pain, and the pus drained from -my leg. - -Q. Were you able to work? - -A. I was unable to work, and I had to stay in bed because I could not -walk. - -Q. Do you remember when you got up out of bed and were able to walk? - -A. I stayed in bed several weeks, and then I got up and tried to walk. - -Q. How long was it until your leg was healed? - -A. The pus was flowing from my leg till June 1943; and at that time my -wound was healed. - -Q. Were you operated on again? - -A. Yes, I was operated on again in the bunker. - -Q. In the bunker? That is not in the hospital? - -A. Not in the hospital but in the bunker. - -Q. Will you explain to the Tribunal how that happened? - -A. May I ask permission to tell something which happened in March 1943, -March or February 1943? - -Q. All right. - -A. At the end of February 1943, Dr. Oberheuser called us and said, -“Those girls are new guinea pigs”; and we were very well known under -this name in the camp. Then we understood that we were persons intended -for experiments, and we decided to protest against the performance of -those operations on healthy people. - -We drew up a protest in writing and we went to the camp commandant. Not -only those girls who had been operated on before but other girls who -were called to the hospital came to the office. The girls who had been -operated on used crutches and they went without any help. - -I would like to tell you the contents of the petition made by us. “We, -the undersigned, Polish political prisoners, ask the commandant whether -he knows that since the year 1942 experimental operations have taken -place in the camp hospital, under the name guinea pigs, explaining the -meaning of those operations. We ask whether we were operated on as a -result of sentences passed on us because, as far as we know, -international law forbids the performance of operations even on -political prisoners.” - -We did not get any answer; and we were not allowed to talk to the -commandant. On 15 August 1943, a policewoman came and read off the names -of 10 new prisoners. She told us to follow her to the hospital. We -refused to go to the hospital, because we thought that we were intended -for a new operation. The policewoman told us that we were probably going -to be sent to the factory for work outside the camp. We wanted to make -sure whether the labor office was open because it was Sunday. The -policewoman told us that we had to go to the hospital to be examined by -a doctor before we went to the factory. We refused to go then because we -were sure that we would be kept in the hospital and operated on again. -All prisoners in the camp were told to stay in the blocks. All of the -women who lived in the same block where I was were told to leave the -block and stand in line in front of Block 10 at a certain time. Then the -Overseer Binz appeared and called out 10 names, and my name was among -them. - -We went out of the line and stood before Block 9 in line. Then Binz -said: “Why do you stand in line as if you were to be executed?” We told -her that operations were worse for us than executions and that we would -prefer to be executed rather than to be operated on again. Binz told us -that she might give us work; there was no question of our being operated -on, but we were going to be sent for work outside the camp. We told her -that she must know that prisoners belonging to our group were not -allowed to leave the camp and go outside. Then she told us to follow her -into her office, that she would show us a paper proving that we were -going to be sent for work to the factory outside the camp. We followed -her and we stood before her office. She was in her office for a while -and then went out and went to the canteen where the camp commandant was. -She had a conference with him probably asking him what to do with us. We -stood in front of the office for half an hour. In the meantime one -fellow prisoner who used to work in the canteen walked past. She told us -that Binz had asked for help from SS men to take us to the hospital by -force. We stood for a while and then Binz came out of the canteen -accompanied by the camp commandant. We stood for a while near the camp -gate. We were afraid that SS men would come to take us, so we ran away -and mixed with other people standing in front of the block. Then Binz -and the camp police appeared. They drove us out from the lines by force. -She told us that she was putting us into the bunker as punishment for -not following her orders. Five prisoners were put into each cell -although one cell was only intended for one person. The cells were quite -dark, without lights. We stayed in the bunker the whole night long and -the next day. We slept on the floor because there was only one couch in -the cell. The next day we were given a breakfast consisting of black -coffee and a piece of dark bread. Then we were locked in again. People -were walking up and down the corridor of the bunker the whole time. The -same day in the afternoon we learned our fate. The woman guard of the -bunker unlocked our cell and took me out. I thought that I was to be -interrogated or beaten. She took me down the corridor. She opened one -door and behind the door stood SS man Dr. Trommel. He told me to follow -him upstairs. Following Dr. Trommel I noticed there were other cells, -with beds and bedding. He put me in one of the cells. Then he asked me -whether I would agree to a small operation. I told him that I did not -agree to it because I had already undergone two operations. He told me -that this was going to be a very small operation and that it would not -harm me. I told him that I was a political prisoner and that operations -could not be performed on political prisoners without their consent. He -told me to lie down on the bed; I refused to do so. He repeated it -twice. Then he went out of the cell and I followed him. He went quickly -downstairs and locked the door. Standing in front of the cell I noticed -a cell on the opposite side of the staircase, and I also noticed some -men in operating gowns. There was also one German nurse ready to give an -injection. Near the staircase stood a stretcher. That made it clear to -me that I was going to be operated on again in the bunker. I decided to -defend myself to the last. In a moment Trommel came back with two SS -men. One of these SS men told me to enter the cell. I refused to do it, -so he forced me into the cell and threw me on the bed. - -Dr. Trommel took me by the left wrist and pulled my arm back. With his -other hand he tried to gag me, putting a piece of rag into my mouth, -because I shouted. The second SS man took my right hand and stretched -it. Two other SS men held me by my feet. Immobilized, I felt somebody -giving me an injection. I defended myself for a long time, but then I -grew weaker. The injection had its effect; I felt sleepy. I heard -Trommel saying, “That is all.” - -I regained consciousness again, but I don’t know when. Then I noticed -that a German nurse was taking off my dress, I then lost consciousness -again; I regained it in the morning. Then I noticed that both my legs -were in iron splints and were bandaged from the toes up to the groin. I -felt a severe pain in my feet, and had a temperature. - -On the afternoon of the same day, a German nurse came and gave me an -injection, in spite of my protests; she gave me this injection in my -thigh and told me that she had to do it. - -Four days after this operation a doctor from Hohenlychen arrived, again -I was given an injection to put me to sleep, and as I protested he told -me that he would change the dressing; I felt a higher temperature and a -greater pain in my legs. - - * * * * * - -Q. How many times did you see Gebhardt? - -A. Twice. - -Q. I will ask you to step down and walk over to the defendants’ dock and -see whether or not you find the man Gebhardt sitting in the dock. - -(The witness complied and pointed to the defendant Gebhardt.) - -Thank you. Sit down. - -I will ask that the record show that the witness properly identified the -defendant Gebhardt. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The record will show that the witness identified -the defendant Gebhardt in the dock. - -MR. MCHANEY: I have no further questions at this time. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Will Dr. Alexander again be put on the stand in -connection with the examination of this witness? - -MR. MCHANEY: Yes, but if there is any cross-examination we can probably -finish that before lunch. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Do any of the defense counsel desire to -cross-examine this witness? - -DR. SEIDL (counsel for the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and -Fischer): I do not intend to cross-examine this witness, but this does -not mean that my clients admit the correctness of all statements made by -this witness. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does any other of the defense counsel desire to -examine the witness? - -(No response.) - - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS DR. LEO - ALEXANDER[46] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - -MR. MCHANEY: Doctor, can you express any opinion as to the purpose of -the type of operation to which she [Karolewska] was subjected, that is -the bone removal? - -DR. ALEXANDER: I think it must have been one of the experiments which -aimed at the question of regeneration of bone or possible -transplantation of bone. Chances are that this tibial graft was either -implanted in another person or that grafts had been exchanged. Of course -today, 3 years after the experiment, no trace of transplantation is left -in this individual. Or if the object was, as alleged in some statements -I have seen, that tibial grafts were exchanged between the two legs, one -must conclude that the experiment was negative because there is no -evidence that a graft took. All we see now are the consequences of -removal of a graft, and the graft had included the entire compact part -of the bone, otherwise the repair would have been better. If some part -of the compact had remained, the periosteum would have probably -regenerated and today, 3 years after the operation, no X-ray would have -shown the defect. So I feel that rather deep grafts were taken which -went down into the spongiosa. Whether anything was replaced that later -was destroyed, I do not know, except the patient stated that there was a -purulent discharge, indicating that the wound had become infected, and -her statement of a subsequent operation, in fact, if I am not mistaken, -two subsequent operations, indicates the probability that the grafts did -not take and that they were removed after infection had become obvious. - ------ - -[43] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947, -pp. 10874-10910. - -[44] Dr. Maczka appeared as witness before the Tribunal, 10 January -1947, Tr. pp. 1430-1462. - -[45] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20 Dec. -1946, pp. 815-832. - -[46] This testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20 Dec. -1946, pp. 832-838. - - 7. SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt, -Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, -Schaefer, and Beiglboeck were charged with special responsibility for -and participation in criminal conduct involving sea-water experiments -(par. 6 (G) of the indictment). In the course of the trial the -prosecution withdrew the charge in the case of Mrugowsky. On this charge -the defendants Schroeder, Gebhardt, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and -Beiglboeck were convicted and the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, -Rostock, Rudolf Brandt, Poppendick, and Schaefer were acquitted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the sea-water experiments -is contained in its final brief against the defendant Schroeder. -Extracts from that brief are set forth below on pages 419 to 443. A -corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these -experiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant -Schroeder and from the closing brief for the defendant Beiglboeck. It -appears below on pages 434 to 446. This argumentation is followed by -selections from the evidence on pages 447 to 494. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHROEDER_ - - _Sea-Water Experiments_ - - * * * * * - -On 19 May 1944 a conference was held at the German Air Ministry which -was attended by Christensen, Schickler, Becker-Freyseng, and Schaefer, -among others. This conference was concerned with the problem of the -potability of sea-water. Two methods of making sea-water drinkable were -then available to the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. One, the -so-called Schaefer method, had been chemically tested and apparently -produced potable sea-water. It had the disadvantage, however, of -requiring substantial amounts of silver which was available only in -limited quantities. The second method, so-called Berkatit, was a -substance which changed the taste of sea-water but did not remove the -salt. It had the advantage of simplicity of manufacture and use. - -At the conference on 19 May the defendant Becker-Freyseng reported on -certain clinical experiments which had been conducted by von Sirany to -test Berkatit. He came to the conclusion that the experiments had not -been conducted under sufficiently realistic conditions of sea distress. -He reported that the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe was— - - “* * * convinced that, if the Berka method is used, damage to - health had to be expected not later than 6 days after taking - Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent injuries to - health and—according to the opinion of Unterarzt Dr. - Schaefer—will finally result in death after not later than 12 - days. External symptoms are to be expected such as dehydration, - diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations, and finally death.” - (_NO-117, Pros. Ex. 133._) - -As a result of this conference it was agreed to conduct new experiments. -They were to include a series of experiments for a maximum of 6 days -during which one group was to be given sea-water processed with -Berkatit, another group ordinary drinking water, another group no -drinking water at all, and the final group such water as was available -in the emergency sea distress kits then used. A second series of -experiments was decided upon and the report stated: - - “Persons nourished with sea-water and Berkatit, and as diet also - the emergency sea rations. - - “_Duration of experiments: 12 days._ - - “Since in the opinion of the chief of the medical service - permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the - experimental subjects has to be expected, as experimental - subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the - disposal by Reichsfuehrer SS.” (_NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133._) - -Thus, with full knowledge that the use of Berkatit for periods of 6 days -would result in permanent injuries to the experimental subjects and that -death would result no later than the 12th day, plans were made to -conduct experiments of 6 and 12 days’ duration. _It should be noted that -the conference report does not state that the duration was a maximum of -12 days as in the case of the first series of experiment._ The duration -was to be 12 days in any event. Since it was known that volunteers could -not be expected under such conditions, the conference determined to use -inmates of concentration camps which would be put at their disposal by -the SS. At a second meeting on 20 May 1944, the report states that “it -was decided that Dachau was to be the place where the experiments were -(to be) conducted.” (_NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133._) Copies of the report on -the conferences were sent, among others, to the Medical Experimentation -and Instruction Division of the Air Force, Jueterbog, to which the -defendants, Schaefer and Holzloehner, who conducted the freezing -experiments with Rascher, were attached; to the German Aviation Research -Institute, Berlin-Adlershof, to which the defendants Ruff and Romberg -were attached; to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe (L. In. 14); -and to the Reich Leader SS. The report was signed by Christensen of the -Technical Office of the Reich Air Ministry. - -On 7 June 1944 the defendant Schroeder wrote to Himmler through Grawitz -asking for concentration camp inmates to be used as subjects in the -sea-water experiments. This letter reads in part as follows: - - “Earlier already you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to - settle urgent medical matters through experiments on human - beings. _Today again_ I stand before a decision which, after - numerous experiments on animals as well as human experiments on - voluntary experimental subjects, demands a final solution. The - Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods for making - sea-water potable. The one method, developed by a medical - officer, removes the salt from the sea-water and transforms it - into real drinking water; the second method, suggested by an - engineer, leaves the salt content unchanged, and only removes - the unpleasant taste from the sea-water. The latter method, in - contrast to the first, requires no critical raw material. From - the medical point of view this method must be viewed critically, - as the administration of concentrated salt solutions can produce - severe symptoms of poisoning. - - “_As the experiments on human beings could thus far only be - carried out for a period of 4 days, and as practical demands - require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12 - days, appropriate experiments are necessary._ - - “Required are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available - for 4 whole weeks. _As it is known from previous experiments - that necessary laboratories exist in the concentration camp - Dachau, this camp would be very suitable._” [Emphasis supplied.] - (_NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134._) - -Schroeder concluded his letter by stating that the experiments would be -directed by the defendant Beiglboeck. - - * * * * * - -That these experiments were carried out on nonvoluntary subjects is also -proved by Grawitz’ letter to Himmler on 28 June 1944. (_NO-179, Pros. -Ex. 135._) In this letter Grawitz reports the opinions of Gebhardt, -Gluecks, and Nebe, as well as his own, on the proposed experiments. -Gluecks stated that he had no “objections whatsoever to the experiments -requested by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be -conducted at the Rascher experimental station in the Dachau -concentration camp. _If possible, Jews or prisoners held in quarantine -are to be used._” It is impossible to imagine a Jew being asked to -volunteer for anything in the Third Reich when they were being -slaughtered by the millions in the concentration camps. Nebe stated: “I -proposed taking for this purpose the asocial gypsy half-breeds. There -are people among them, who, although healthy, are out of the question as -regards labor commitment. Regarding these gypsies, I shall shortly make -a special proposal to the Reich Leader, but I think it right to select -from among these people the necessary number of test subjects. Should -the Reich Leader agree to this, _I shall list by name the persons to be -used_.” It is a little difficult to imagine how Nebe, chief of the Reich -Criminal Police, could “list by name” gypsy volunteers for these -experiments. Grawitz raised the objection to the use of gypsies on the -ground that they were “of somewhat different racial composition” and he -therefore wanted experimental subjects racially comparable to European -peoples. Himmler decided that gypsies plus three others for control -should be used. (_NO-183, Pros. Ex. 136._) - -Schroeder testified that he tried to arrange for carrying out the -sea-water experiments at the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick. He -remembered very specifically, according to his testimony, that he had -contacted the commander of that hospital on 1 June 1944. He stated that -he also attempted to obtain students as experimental subjects from the -Luftwaffe Medical Academy in the latter part of May 1944. Both of these -attempts to obtain volunteers allegedly failed because of the lack of -clinical facilities and the calling up of students to active service. -Schroeder testified that he went to the SS only after he had exhausted -all other possibilities. He would have the Tribunal believe that there -was no place to find 40 volunteers and the necessary clinical -facilities, although von Sirany had conducted such experiments in Vienna -on Wehrmacht soldiers, but of course _for only 4 days_. (_Tr. pp. -3657-9._) - -In connection with this testimony of Schroeder’s, it should be noted -that the records of the conference on 19 and 20 May 1944 were -immediately sent to the SS. The decision to use concentration camp -inmates did not await any efforts to find volunteers but was made at the -conference of 19 May. It was known that because of the very nature of -the experiments which were planned volunteers could not be obtained. -Contrariwise, it is impossible to believe that the commanding officer of -the whole of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe was unable to obtain -40 volunteers for the experiments which he claims were so innocuous. -There were no regulations which forbade experiments on members of the -Wehrmacht. (_Tr. p. 3660._) The defense witness Haagen, in connection -with his proposed epidemic jaundice experiments on human beings, as set -forth in his letter of 27 June 1944 to Kalk, who was attached to the -staff of Schroeder, insisted at great length that he planned to use -volunteers from the student companies of the Wehrmacht at Strasbourg, -Freiburg, or Heidelberg. (_Tr. p. 9578._) He was positive that student -volunteers would have been made available. He stated that he could have -used them during their vacations. (_Tr. p. 9579._) Kalk was also sure -that this could have been done. Haagen emphasized repeatedly that -volunteers were available. (_Tr. p. 9580._) Clinical facilities would -have been easily obtained in reserve hospitals. (_Tr. p. 9581._) - -Schroeder testified that he did not know that Berkatit would cause death -in not more than 12 days. (_Tr. p. 3666._) He could not remember whether -Schaefer had told him that taking Berkatit for 12 days would cause -death. In a pretrial interrogation, he specifically denied that. (_Tr. -p. 3668._) He testified that while both Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer -were at the Nuernberg meeting in October 1942 at which the report on the -freezing experiments at Dachau was given, neither of them reported to -him about it when he proposed going to Dachau to conduct the sea-water -experiments. (_Tr. p. 3669._) Schroeder denied that he had ever seen the -report on the meeting of 19 and 20 May 1944 (_NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133_) on -the sea-water experiments. (_Tr. p. 3662._) Although a copy of this -report was sent to Himmler, he would have the Tribunal believe that it -was a sheer coincidence that he turned to Himmler for experimental -subjects without having seen the report. (_Tr. p. 3669._) He testified -that he told Grawitz in a meeting with him that he wanted the -experiments carried out on dishonorably discharged soldiers. (_Tr. p. -3670._) Grawitz allegedly said that he would respect this wish. -Schroeder stated that he made it clear to Grawitz that the subjects had -to be volunteers, with a little food as a reward. (_Tr. p. 3672._) He -further testified that he told Grawitz that the experiments had to be -controlled by the Luftwaffe. During a pre-trial interrogation, he swore -that he knew nothing about the sea-water experiments, that the SS took -it out of his hands and he had no influence. (_Tr. pp. 3610-1._) -Schroeder had no idea, according to his testimony, that foreigners were -incarcerated in concentration camps. He said that he knew that gypsies -were used as experimental subjects only after the report by Beiglboeck -in Berlin in October 1944. (_Tr. p. 3676._) He testified that he -instructed Beiglboeck that Berkatit was to be used only until the -subjects said they could not tolerate any more. (_Tr. p. 3677._) He -admitted having heard the report by Beiglboeck on the experiments, -together with Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer, among others, but that he -did not hear the complete report as he had to leave the meeting early. -(_Tr. pp. 3679-80._) - -The charts kept by the defendant Beiglboeck on each of the experimental -subjects—which the defense was finally forced into submitting in -evidence, after attempting to use them through the defense “expert” -Vollhardt without offering the documents themselves—give some of the -details as to the experiments, although under the circumstances their -reliability is doubtful. (_Tr. p. 9381._) Certain alterations in these -records which will be discussed at a later point, indicate that they are -not entitled to great weight. The experiments began in August 1944 and -continued until the middle of September. Forty-four experimental -subjects were used. Subjects one to six were deprived of all food and -water for periods from 5½ to 7½ days. The duration of the experiments -given herein is based upon the starting date of the morning of 22 -August, as contended by the defense, although there is some evidence -indicating that the starting date was 21 August. If the experiment was -interrupted in the forenoon, no additional day or part thereof is -counted. If it was interrupted between noon and 1700 hours, one-half day -is added, while if it was interrupted after 1700 hours, a full day is -added. Subjects 7 through 10 were given 1,000 cc. of Schaefer water for -12, 13, and 12 days, respectively, and hungered for 7, 8, and 9 days, -respectively. Subject No. 9 was not used for reasons of health. This was -the defense witness Mettbach. Subjects 11 through 18 were given 500 cc. -of sea-water plus the emergency sea ration which contained approximately -a total of 2,400 calories. These experiments lasted from 5 to 10 days. -They hungered up to 6½ days. Several of these subjects, for example, 11, -13, 17, and 18 were subjected to two separate experiments of 8 and 6 -days, 6 and 5 days, 7½ and 5 days, and 10 and 4 days, respectively. -Subjects 19 through 25 were given 500 cc. of Berkatit plus the emergency -sea ration. The duration of the experiments lasted from 5 to 9½ days -with periods of hunger up to 6½ days. Subjects 19 and 20 underwent two -separate experiments of 7 and 5 days each. Subjects 26 through 30 were -given 1,000 cc. of Berkatit plus the emergency sea ration. Duration of -the experiments was from 5 to 9½ days with periods of hunger up to 6½ -days. Subject 29 underwent two experiments of 8 and 5 days. Subjects 31 -and 32 were given 1,000 cc. of sea-water for 8 and 6 days, respectively. -Subject 31 was subjected to an additional experiment of 5 days. Subject -33 was given 500 cc. of Berkatit for 6 days; subject 34, 1,000 cc. of -Schaefer for 12 days, subjects 35 through 37, 39, 41, and 42 were given -500 cc. of sea-water for periods ranging from 4 to 6 days; subjects 38, -40, and 43 were given 1,000 cc. of sea-water for 6, 5, and 6 days; and -subject 44 was given Schaefer water for 12 days. - -The clinical charts on the experiments also supply us with the ages of -the experimental subjects. Subjects 17, 19, 20, 35, 37, 40, and 43 were -all under the age of 21. Subject 40 was 16 years old; subjects 17, 19, -and 37 were 17 years old; subject 35 was 18 years old; subject 43 was 19 -years old; and subject 20 was 20 years old. Needless to say, no effort -was made to obtain the consent of the parents or guardians of these -minors. - -The defendant Beiglboeck testified that he reported to Berlin at the end -of June 1944 where he was told by Becker-Freyseng that he was to carry -out the sea-water experiments in Dachau. He also saw Schroeder -previously in connection with the experiments. He said he attempted to -withdraw because he had a horror of working in a concentration camp. He -did not refuse to perform the experiments because he was afraid of being -called to account for failure to obey orders. (_Tr. pp. 8828-9._) -Becker-Freyseng told him that the purpose of the experiments was, first, -to find out if Berkatit was useful; second, to test the Schaefer method; -and third, to see whether it would be better to go completely without -sea-water or to drink small quantities of it. (_Tr. p. 8832._) He said -he was told by the officials in Dachau that the gypsies who were to be -used in the experiments were held as “asocial” persons. Beiglboeck -apparently considers himself an expert on asocials. He testified that it -was his understanding that a whole family could be classified asocial, -although this “does not exclude the possibility that, in this family, -there may be a large number of persons who did not commit any crime.” -(_Tr. p. 8848._) - -He testified that he called the experimental subjects together and told -them what the experiment was about and asked them if they wanted to -participate. (_Tr. p. 8849._) He did not tell them how long the -experiment would last. He did not tell them that they could withdraw at -any time. He testified that he _had to require_ that they thirst for a -certain period. The decision as to their being relieved from the -experiment lay with him. (_Tr. p. 8850._) During the course of the -experiments he testified that the subjects revolted on one occasion -because they did not get the food they had been promised. (_Tr. p. -8863._) They did not get food for several days because of a delay in -delivery. (_Tr. p. 8868._) The subjects were locked in a room during the -experiments. Beiglboeck testified that: - - “They should have been locked in a lot better than they were, - because then they would have had no opportunity at all to get - fresh water on the side.” (_Tr. p. 8864._) - -He stated that the danger point would be reached in about seven days -drinking 500 cc. of sea-water, while in cases of 1,000 cc. of sea-water, -it would be 4½ days. (_Tr. pp. 8876-7._) Compare the much longer -duration of the experiments as set out above. - -It was readily apparent to the prosecution after an inspection of the -clinical charts kept during the course of the experiments that a number -of alterations had been made in them. These records were in the -exclusive possession of defense counsel prior to the testimony of -Vollhardt, whose expert opinion was based in part upon such records. In -a large number of instances the names of the experimental subjects have -been erased from the charts, obviously in an effort to make it -impossible to locate such persons for the purpose of giving testimony. -An examination of the charts further reveals that the final weights of -the experimental subjects were written on the charts in a different -shade of ink from the remainder of the records. In some cases these -weights were written over the original pencil notations; for example, on -chart C-2 the final weight of 62 kilograms in pencil was written over in -ink to read 64½ kilograms. Beiglboeck admitted that the red arrows -purporting to indicate the start of the experiments, usually appearing -under the date August 22, were made by him in 1945, long after the -experiment had been completed. (_Tr. p. 8909._) In charts 1 to 32 a red -mark under the date August 21 appears, which would indicate that the -experiments very probably began on that date. Certain notes in German -shorthand appear on the back of chart C-23. Beiglboeck admitted that he -wrote these notes himself. (_Tr. p. 8970._) Beiglboeck testified that: - - “We [Beiglboeck and his defense counsel] were in agreement at - all times that the charts and curves should be submitted in the - same way as we received them here.” (_Tr. p. 8921._) - -He repeatedly stated that he did not make any erasures on the charts in -Nuernberg. (_Tr. pp. 8922, 8973, 8975-6._) When the proof left him no -alternative, Beiglboeck finally admitted having made changes and -erasures in the notes on the back of chart C-23 in Nuernberg. (_Tr. p. -8978._) These notes give a clinical report on one of the experimental -subjects who was critically ill. The following is a restoration of the -original stenographic notes insofar as they could be translated: - - “The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure. The patient lies - there quite motionless with half-closed eyes. He takes no notice - of his surroundings. He asks for water only when he awakes from - his semiconscious condition (half a line erased). - - “The appearance is very bad—looks doomed. The general condition - gives cause for alarm. - - “Respiration more shallow, labored, moderately frequent. - - “Respirations 25 per minute. - - “The eyes are deeply hollowed, the turgor of the skin greatly - reduced. - - “Skin dry, tongue completely dry, whitish coating in the middle - fairly loose. - - “The mucous membranes of the mouth and the lips dry, latter - covered with crusts. Lungs show slight very dry bronchitis lower - border VI-XII, sharpened vesicular respiration. - - “Heartbeats very low hardly audible. Filling of the pulse - weaker. Increased thickness of walls of blood vessels. Frequency - 72, liver, 2½-3 fingers below sternal margin, rather soft, - moderately sensitive to pressure; spleen on percussion slightly - enlarged. - - “Musculature hypotonic. Joints over-extendable. Calves slightly - sensitive to pressure. Indications of transverse welt formation, - marked longitudinal welt formation. Romberg plus plus. Reflexes - plus plus. Abdominal reflexes plus plus. Babinski negative. Eife - phenomenon. Oppenheim negative. Rossolimo negative. Tonus of the - bulb of the eye bad. Bulbus reflex positive. (Interruption.)” - -Beiglboeck had substituted the word “somnolent” for the word -“semiconscious” in the last line of the first paragraph. In this same -paragraph half a line was completely erased and could not be translated. -Beiglboeck purported not to remember what it said, an obvious falsehood -since it was erased out of fear of the truth. In the last sentence of -the second paragraph, Beiglboeck altered the notes to read “The general -condition gives no cause for alarm.” In the first line of the eighth -paragraph, Beiglboeck substituted the word “poorly” for “hardly.” The -notation “Romberg plus plus” means that the subject has an “uncertain” -ability to stand. (_Tr. p. 8982._) He said that these notes refer to -subject number 30 rather than subject 23. (_Tr. p. 8984._) - -Beiglboeck testified that he made no further changes, erasures, or -alterations in Nuernberg. (_Tr. p. 8992._) That Beiglboeck’s testimony -as a whole is completely unreliable is evidenced by the fact that he -also made erasures in the notes on the back of chart A-29. These notes, -insofar as they can be translated, read as follows: - - “The thirst again becomes very severe. Patient lies down on his - back and rolls about. Also gets * * * a typical stereotyped - organic rigid seizure with severe tetanic symptoms such as from - his * * *, symptoms * * *. In view of the fact that in the last - two days he has been drinking a great deal of water * * * - quarter plus half liter, he is being taken out of the - experiment. - - “3/9 Again taken into the experiment. - - “5/9 Again complains about very severe thirst. - - “6/9 Feeling of thirst very severe, tongue dry and coated. Fetid - smell from the mouth. Skin dry and hot, liver significantly - enlarged, reflexes very lively, blood vessels show thickening of - walls, musculature over-excitable. - - “7/9 Psychic state has changed. Somnolence. Tongue dry, - musculature feels stiffened. Considerable weakness of - musculature with atoxic manifestation. Romberg positive. Blood - vessels still * * *, pulse poorly filled, marked bradycardia, - respiration accelerated. General condition [the next word erased - and not legible], liver greatly enlarged.” - -In the case of subject 25, Beiglboeck testified that this man was -X-rayed several times and apparently had acute bronchitis. His fever -went up to 39.8 Centigrade. (_Tr. p. 8998._) He complained of a stomach -ailment before the experiment began. (_Tr. p. 9000._) He was still sick -when Beiglboeck left Dachau on 15 September. (_Tr. p. 9002._) Subject 39 -was a man 49 years old; He was given 500 cc. of Berkatit for a period of -four days, namely, from 1 September to 4 September, when the experiment -was interrupted at 1930 hours. Beiglboeck used the truth with -characteristic economy when he testified that the man was undergoing the -experiment only three days. (_Tr. p. 9010._) He admitted having -performed numerous lumbar and liver punctures on the subjects. (_Tr. p. -8933._) - -A number of experimental subjects were able to gain access to fresh -water in spite of the efforts of Beiglboeck to prevent them. Beiglboeck -and his defense counsel assumed the anomalous position that this somehow -mitigates his guilt. It is difficult to understand how this self-help on -the part of the subjects, which undoubtedly saved the lives of the -majority of them, could be raised as a mitigating factor when Beiglboeck -did everything in his power to prevent that. As a matter of fact he did -not even know that the experimental subjects in the first group, that is -to say from 1 to 32, had been able to get at fresh water. He testified -that: - - “I should like to say that in the second group, when I knew - their devices from my experience with the first group, I knew - what to do and broke off the experiments. If I had wanted to - continue the experiments, I would have done it in the second - group too. This I did in the first group _only became at first I - did not realize the significance of their failure to lose - weight_.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_Tr. p. 9022._) - -_Thus Beiglboeck says, in effect, that although he did not know that the -experimental subjects gained access to fresh water, and although he -continued the experiments far beyond what he himself knew to be the -danger point, nonetheless he is to be excused because some of the -experimental subjects drank fresh water secretly in spite of his efforts -to prevent it._ - -The expert witness, Dr. Ivy, testified for the prosecution concerning -sea-water experiments. He, himself, participated in an experiment of -three days during which he consumed 2,400 cc. of sea-water with a -caloric intake of 108 per day in the form of candy. He suffered marked -dehydration and was at the point of developing hallucinations. A second -volunteer in these experiments took 2,000 cc. in a little over one day -and developed vomiting and diarrhea to such an extent that the -experiment had to be stopped. (_Tr. p. 9038-9._) Compare the amounts of -sea-water taken by Beiglboeck’s subjects. For scientific data concerning -the effect of sea-water on the human body, see Transcript pages 9039-41. -Dr. Ivy pointed out certain basic inconsistencies in the testimony of -the defense expert witness, Vollhardt. (_Tr. pp. 9041-43._) Dr. Ivy -testified that it was entirely unnecessary to perform these experiments -for the purpose of establishing the potability of sea-water processed by -the Berka method. This could have been determined chemically in a matter -of one-half hour. (_Tr. pp. 9043-4._) He stated that if 1,000 cc. of -sea-water or Berkatit were taken per day, it would cause death in less -than 12 days. Death would occur between the 8th and the 14th day if 500 -cc. were consumed per day under ideal conditions. (_Tr. p. 9045._) The -statement in the report of the conferences on 19 and 20 May 1944 that if -Berka water was used, damage to health was to be expected not later than -six days and would lead to death not later than 12 days is essentially -correct. (_Tr. p. 9044._) This document shows that the planned duration -of the experiments was 12 days. Dr. Ivy testified that it would be -unnecessary to conduct experiments for more than three or four days to -show that Berkatit was just as dehydrating as sea-water. (_Tr. p. -9046._) He stated that these experiments make sense only if they were -trying to determine the survival time of human beings on 500 cc. and -1,000 cc. of sea-water per day. It is clear that the experimental plan -anticipated deaths. (_Tr. pp. 9046-7._) - -Dr. Ivy testified that, on the basis of his studies of the charts kept -during the course of the experiments, there was an insufficient -observation period after the experiments to determine whether there were -any delayed damaging effects to the experimental subjects. (_Tr. p. -9049._) The results of the experiments are not scientifically reliable. -(_Tr. p. 9051._) - -Dr. Ivy pointed out that the chart of subject 3 proved that he was too -weak to stand and have his blood pressure taken on several occasions. -(_Tr. p. 9052._) This was one of the subjects in the fasting and -thirsting group. He was given an injection of coronine on 29 August and -strychnine on 30 and 31 August. Both of these drugs are heart stimulants -and the clinical picture indicates that this subject was ill or markedly -disabled by the experiments. (_Tr. p. 9053._) Eight to fourteen days is -the range of _survival time_ of strong men under ideal conditions for -thirsting and fasting. (_Tr. p. 9053._) - -As a result of his study of the clinical records, Dr. Ivy testified that -subjects 3, 14, 36, 37, 39, 31, 23 (or 30), 25, 28, and 29 were ill -during the experiments. Subjects 3, 23, (or 30), and 25 were especially -ill and there is a possibility that they were permanently injured or -died as a result of the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9058-9._) - -The subject to whom the notes on the back of chart C-23 applied was very -sick and in a coma. (_Tr. p. 9061._) The changes made in the -stenographic notes by the defendant Beiglboeck make the subject appear -to be in a better condition than he actually was. (_Tr. pp. 9062-3._) -The bulbous reflex referred to in these notes means the pressing of the -eyeball to determine the degree of coma. “Tonus of ball of eyes is bad” -indicates the blood pressure was low and the circulation was quite poor. -This is a bad prognostic sign and might indicate impending death. (_Tr. -p. 9064._) These notes indicate that the subject was in a dangerous -condition and required immediate remedial therapy. The follow-up -observation for subject 23 was four days, while for subject 30 it was -five days. This was entirely insufficient. This subject could have died -if not properly cared for. (_Tr. pp. 9065-6._) - -Dr. Ivy testified that of the 44 subjects, 13 were too weak to stand on -one or more occasions, had fever, required cardiac stimulants, or were -unconscious—namely, subjects, 3, 4, 14, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37, -39 and 40. (_Tr. pp. 9067-8._) The statement of the affiant Bauer to the -effect that he observed symptoms of heart weakness in the experimental -subjects as a result of certain electrocardiograms he took was -corroborated by Ivy. (_Tr. p. 9069._) - -In Dr. Ivy’s opinion, an experimental subject who agrees to undergo an -experiment is no longer a volunteer if, during the course of the -experiment, he is forced to continue after having expressed a desire to -be relieved. (_Tr. pp. 9076-7._) - -The testimony of the defense expert Vollhardt is entirely unreliable. -Although Vollhardt had nothing whatever to do with these experiments in -Dachau, he repeatedly testified in a highly partial manner concerning -matters about which he could not possibly have had any knowledge. For -example, he insisted that the subjects in Dachau were volunteers. He -testified that Beiglboeck eliminated three subjects before the -experiments began because of their physical condition, and that three -other persons immediately volunteered. (_Tr. pp. 8457-8._) Even -Beiglboeck made no such contention. He said that he considered it “quite -out of the question that the experimental subjects felt it necessary to -drink water out of mops, because there were air raid buckets and if they -felt they needed a drink, they could have drunk out of them.” (_Tr. p. -8467._) It is passing strange that Vollhardt could have such information -when he was never in Dachau. He believed it quite impossible that any of -the experimental subjects had cramps, although subject 29 is proved to -have had cramps and organic seizures by the notes quoted above. Although -Vollhardt admitted that the clinical data showed that a number of the -experimental subjects had secretly obtained fresh water, and although -Beiglboeck admitted that some of the subjects threw their urine away -(_Tr. p. 8865_), Vollhardt was quite sure that the experimental subjects -were all volunteers. - -Vollhardt made no study of the clinical notes himself but turned them -over to a 25-year-old assistant to digest for him. (_Tr. p. 8432._) He -admitted that he relied on descriptions of the experiments made by -Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck since the trial began. (_Tr. p. 8438._) -Vollhardt had had no previous experience with sea-water problems, nor -had his assistant. (_Tr. p. 8451._) Vollhardt testified that he -conducted a volunteer experiment on five of his doctor assistants after -he had been approached by defense counsel. His subjects drank 500 cc. of -simulated sea-water per day and received 1,600 calories per day. (_Tr. -pp. 8440-2._) Four of the subjects continued the experiment for five -days and one for six days. The latter subject drank an extra 500 cc. on -the last day. The purpose of these experiments was to ascertain how much -a person suffers when undergoing a sea-water experiment. (_Tr. p. -8443._) Vollhardt’s subjects continued their work about the clinic, -although they ate and slept in the same room. He does not know whether -they went to the local cinema or left the clinic for other purposes -during the course of the experiments. (_Tr. p. 8445._) Four of the -subjects quit on the fifth day because of an engagement with a young -lady. (_Tr. p. 8450._) He testified that his subjects had no severe -thirst on the first two days, it became unpleasant on the third, reduced -thirst on the fourth, and very strong thirst on the fifth day; the -subject who went six days reported that it made very little difference. -All continued their work during the experiment. (_Tr. p. 8453._) It is -obvious that this experiment in no way compared to those conducted in -Dachau. While some of the experimental subjects in Dachau were too weak -on many occasions to have their blood pressure taken, Vollhardt’s -subjects were able to continue their work. - -While Vollhardt’s subjects were trained doctors who participated in the -experiment because of interest, who were permitted to withdraw from the -experiment at any time, who were permitted to control their own -activities during the experiment, none of these important factors were -present in the Dachau experiments. (_Tr. p. 8479._) The wretched gypsies -were not permitted to withdraw when they felt like it. They did not know -how long the experiments were to last, they had no freedom of activity, -they had no interest in the experiment. Vollhardt’s regard for these -gypsies is apparent from his statement that “* * * people like that will -of course find a way” to cheat. (_Tr. p. 8468._) That Vollhardt knew -nothing of the experiments he purported to testify about is apparent -from his testimony regarding their duration. For example, he stated that -in the Berkatit group of 500 cc., the experiments were discontinued -after six days. (_Tr. p. 8462._) _The clinical charts which Vollhardt -had in his possession, and upon which his testimony purported to be -based, show that the duration of the experiments in this group ran as -high as 9½ days, and in all but two cases exceeded six days. He -testified that the group on sea-water was also discontinued after six -days while the clinical charts show some of them to have run as long as -ten days. In the fasting and thirsting group he testified that they were -discontinued after four to five days, while the chart shows that they -lasted from 5½ to 7½ days._ (_Tr. pp. 8462-3._) No, Vollhardt’s -testimony would indeed have been an unreliable substitute for the -charts. - -The testimony of the prosecution witnesses proves that the sea-water -experiments resulted in murder and tortures. The Austrian witness -Vorlicek, who was tried for “preparation of high treason” in 1939 and -sentenced to four years in a penitentiary, was transferred to Dachau in -March 1944 and acted as an assistant nurse in the experimental station -during the course of the sea-water experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9383-5._) One -of the inmate guards who fell asleep was transferred to a penal company. -(_Tr. p. 9386._) At least one of the subjects suffered a violent attack -of cramps. (_Tr. p. 9386._) On one occasion Vorlicek spilled some fresh -water on the floor and forgot the rag which he used to mop it up. The -experimental subjects seized the dirty rag and sucked the water out of -it. Beiglboeck threatened to put him in the experiments if it ever -happened again. (_Tr. p. 9387._) The experimental subjects were not -volunteers. Vorlicek talked to some of the Czech subjects who told him -they had been asked in another camp to volunteer for a good outside -assignment and only when they got to Dachau did they find out that they -were to undergo the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9388, 9392._) He testified -that the subjects were of Czech, Polish, Hungarian, Austrian, and German -nationalities. (_Tr. p. 9388._) Some of the subjects were quite ill and -he was under the impression that they would not live much longer. About -three months after the experiments he met Franz, one of the subjects, -and he told him that one of the victims of the experiments had already -died. (_Tr. p. 9390._) - -The witness Laubinger, who was subject number 7, testified that he was -arrested by the Gestapo in March 1943 because he was a gypsy. He was -sent to Auschwitz in the spring of 1943 without having been tried for -any crime. (_Tr. p. 10199._) He was later transferred to Buchenwald for -a few weeks and while there, together with other inmates, was asked to -volunteer for a cleaning-up work detail in Dachau. The inmates were -under the impression that conditions were better in Dachau, so they -agreed to go. Upon their arrival at Dachau they were given a physical -examination and X-rayed and then taken to the experimental station. -(_Tr. p. 10200._) Beiglboeck told them that they were to participate in -the sea-water experiment and that was the first they knew of it. (_Tr. -p. 10201._) Laubinger identified Beiglboeck in the dock. (_Tr. p. -10202._) He told Beiglboeck that he had had two stomach operations, but -Beiglboeck did not permit him to withdraw. Beiglboeck did not ask -whether the subjects wished to volunteer, and they did not volunteer. -(_Tr. p. 10203._) Laubinger, who was in the Schaefer group, was given -Schaefer water for 12 days and fasted for at least nine days. He got so -weak he could hardly stand up. The experimental subjects received -special food for only one day after the experiment. Beiglboeck had -promised them extra rations and an easy work detail but these promises -were not kept. (_Tr. p. 10205._) One of the subjects tried to persuade -the others to refuse to drink the sea-water. Beiglboeck threatened to -have him hanged for sabotage. The subject later vomited after drinking -sea-water whereupon Beiglboeck had the water administered through a -stomach tube. (_Tr. p. 10207._) Another subject was tied to his bed and -adhesive tape was plastered over his mouth, because he had obtained some -fresh water and bread. Most of the subjects were Czech, Polish, and -Russian nationalities, with approximately eight Germans. (_Tr. p. -10208._). A number of subjects suffered attacks of delirium and two were -transferred to the hospital. Laubinger did not see them again. (_Tr. p. -10209._) - -The witness Hoellenrainer corroborated the testimony of Laubinger on all -important points. He testified that the experimental subjects did not -volunteer (_Tr. p. 10509_) and that the majority of them were non-German -nationals. (_Tr. p. 10513._) Hoellenrainer testified further that -Beiglboeck showed no concern for the experimental subjects, but, on the -contrary, threatened to shoot them when they became excited. (It hardly -seems appropriate to wear a gun when experimenting on volunteers.) He -had no pity for them when they became delirious from thirst and hunger. -(_Tr. p. 10510._) The witness Hoellenrainer unfortunately assaulted -Beiglboeck in open Court. This impulsive act of the witness, however, -speaks more forcibly than volumes of testimony as to the inhuman -treatment of the experimental subjects and the suffering which was -inflicted on them as a result of these experiments. We may rest assured -that Hoellenrainer was no volunteer. When explaining his behavior to the -Tribunal, Hoellenrainer characterized Beiglboeck a “murderer”. (_Tr. pp. -10233-4._) - -The witness Tschofenig was committed to Dachau in November 1940 where he -remained until April 1945. He was a political prisoner. (_Tr. p. -9331._). He is at present a member of the Carinthian Land Diet in -Austria. (_Tr. p. 9332._) From the summer of 1942 until the end, he was -in charge of the X-ray station in Dachau. (_Tr. p. 9334._) He examined -the transport of gypsies in the summer of 1944 before the experiments -began and excluded a number of them as being unfit. (_Tr. pp. 9334-5._) -He saw Beiglboeck several times in the camp and in the X-ray station. -(_Tr. p. 9335._) During the experiments a number of those who got sick -were brought to the X-ray station for examination. Their physical -condition had deteriorated considerably as a result of the experiments. -He heard that one of the subjects had a maniac attack. (_Tr. p. 9336._) -At the conclusion of the experiments, three of the subjects were brought -to the station for internal diseases. One was on a stretcher and unable -to walk. All of them were X-rayed by Tschofenig. (_Tr. p. 9338._) It was -customary to send the results of the X-ray examinations to the hospital -ward where the inmates were kept. Tschofenig received an official order -from the station for internal diseases that it was not necessary to -report on the stretcher case as he had died two days after his transfer. -The station physician reported that the death resulted from the -sea-water experiments. Tschofenig examined the death records himself. -(_Tr. p. 9339._) - -Even Dr. Steinbauer, defense counsel for Beiglboeck, has apparently -convinced himself that these experiments involved torture. He said, in -explaining his conduct in withholding part of a document the Tribunal -had ordered to be produced, that: “I do not want to say anything about -the experimental subjects, who suffered terribly.” (_Tr. p. 9378._) - - c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT SCHROEDER_[47] - - * * * * * - -I now come to the count of the indictment “Participation of the -defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder in the sea-water experiments which -were carried out in the Dachau concentration camp.” - -In the case of these experiments, Professor Schroeder’s participation -has been established, and he has accepted the responsibility as far as -the preparation and the planning of these experiments are concerned. -Professor Schroeder has mainly been accused by the prosecution of having -permitted these experiments to be carried out in a concentration camp. -The prosecution in its case against Professor Schroeder further stated -that these experiments were not necessary at all, and it drew the -conclusion that the experiments had only been ordered in order to -torture people and in order to subject them to unnecessary cruelties; it -also stated that it was clear that in no case had the experimental -subjects been volunteers. - -Therefore it is the task of the defense to show in the following -paragraphs why from the point of view of Professor Schroeder, as Chief -of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, these experiments had to -be considered necessary, and just what reasons motivated him to give his -approval for the carrying out of the experiments in a concentration -camp. - -The first question therefore is—why and from what considerations were -there experiments ordered at all? It must be stated in advance here, -that as far as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate Professor Schroeder was -concerned, he did not have to examine the question whether one or the -other method for making sea-water drinkable was more suitable; the -problem for him existed in its entirety and it could not be divided. It -was to rescue shipwrecked persons from death from lack of water and find -the best method of protection against this danger. This problem had -already been handled by various interested agencies for quite some time, -and various individual questions for the solution of this problem had -arisen. No method for making sea-water drinkable had been found and it -was not clear what procedure should be advocated. - -In the course of the year 1943 two methods for making sea-water -drinkable were offered almost simultaneously. One of them, the so-called -Wofatit method, had been developed by Dr. Schaefer in collaboration with -I. G. Farben. Another, the Berkatit method, represented the invention of -Stabsingenieur Berka. - -It was quite clearly recognized that Schaefer’s Wofatit represented the -ideal solution, because this method removed all the salt from the -sea-water and changed it into drinking water, while the Berka method let -the salt remain in the sea-water and only improved the taste of the -sea-water through the addition of various sugar and vitamin drugs. We -agree with the prosecution and the expert Professor Dr. Ivy when they -state that a chemist in the course of one afternoon could have decided -by means of a short experiment whether Wofatit or Berkatit was better. -The participating agencies of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, -Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng, realized that quite -clearly. From the chemical point of view this problem could also have -been solved in a simple manner. - -The difficulty which existed for Professor Schroeder with regard to this -problem, however, lay in another field; this was the shortage of raw -materials prevailing at the time, which had arisen in Germany because of -the war. This circumstance made it possible for the Technical Office of -the Luftwaffe to oppose the introduction of the Wofatit and to consider -the Berkatit method, because the raw materials for the latter method -could be procured without any difficulty and production could be started -right away, since production facilities for the appropriate amounts were -already in existence. It was different in the case of Wofatit. -Considerable amounts of silver were required for its production, which -could not be set aside for the production of Wofatit without damaging -other production branches which also needed this metal. The Technical -Office of the Luftwaffe, therefore, had already decided in favor of the -introduction of Berkatit on 1 July 1944. Professor Schroeder, in his -capacity as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, however, could not have -assumed the responsibility for having the units which were entrusted to -his professional medical care equipped with the Berka method, because -the danger existed that shipwrecked aviators, deceived by the -improvement in the taste of sea-water, would drink it in larger amounts -and thus increase the danger of their dying of thirst. The question also -had to be clarified whether the shipwrecked crew of an airplane -completely adrift at sea should go without any food or water whatsoever -or whether they should consume a certain amount of sea-water rather than -no water at all. This last question could only be clarified by carrying -out an experiment on human beings. An experiment on animals would not -suffice in this respect, because the distribution of water in the body -of animals differs from that in a human being. By proving its medical -objections, the Medical Inspectorate would also have been able to make -its point of view heard by the Technical Office, if the medical expert, -Professor Dr. Eppinger, one of the best known specialists for internal -diseases not only in Germany, but in Europe, had not sided with the -Technical Office. Professor Eppinger, in the conference at the Technical -Office on 25 May 1944, expressly voiced the opinion that the Berka -method was suitable, because for a certain time the human kidney could -concentrate salt up to 3 percent, and because the vitamins which had -been added to the Berka method would be suitable for speeding up the -excretion of the salt from the human organism. This opinion was also -shared at the same conference by the pharmacologist Professor Heubner, -who is still one of the leading specialists in the field today. - -Professor Schroeder would not have been able to turn down both methods. -He would then have been reproached with the fact that he had not done -everything within his power in order to make the position of shipwrecked -German soldiers more bearable and to save them from dying of lack of -water. It, therefore, becomes evident that these considerations on the -part of Schroeder give us proof of his great feeling of responsibility; -it was not easy for him to give his approval for the carrying out of -such experiments. - -Further developments also show clearly that Schroeder, in spite of the -fact that he was extremely busy with official matters, devoted the -greatest care and conscientiousness to this matter. He did not just -decide to select Dachau as the place where the experiments were to be -carried out. Originally he did not even harbor such a thought, but he -intended to have the experiments carried out as a troop experiment in -institutes which were owned by the Luftwaffe. He was primarily -considering the Luftwaffe hospital at Brunswick for this purpose. On 1 -July 1944 he turned to the chief medical officer of this hospital, who -was competent in the matter, who, however, disapproved of it. This -becomes evident from the certificate of Dr. Harriehausen, who was a -Generalarzt at the time. Now Professor Schroeder began to consider the -Military Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe in Berlin, where he intended -to use the young cadets in this academy as experimental subjects. An -inquiry which he made there was also unsuccessful. The reason why his -requests were turned down in each case was that just at this particular -time the OKW had issued a strict order to the effect that all -convalescents were to be returned immediately from the hospitals to -their units, and that the cadets of the academy were to be given a -combat assignment. For the same reason, the suggestion of Professor -Beiglboeck to carry out the experiments at the Tarvis Field Hospital -also remained unsuccessful. - -The further possibility of perhaps using German civilians for the -experiments was completely out of question because at this time it was -not possible to find young men in the age groups necessary in this case -among the German civilian population, because all of them had either -been conscripted for military service or for labor service. Professor -Schroeder, therefore, had no choice but to follow the suggestion of -considering Dachau concentration camp for his experimental station. - -Professor Schroeder was not informed at all about conditions in a -concentration camp. He thought the circumstances in such a camp were no -different from those prevailing in a military camp, and only the names -Dachau and Oranienburg were known to him as concentration camps. In this -connection, it may be pointed out that the SS surrounded events in the -concentration camps with an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy. -Schroeder never listened to foreign radio stations. In the circles of -his medical officers such events were never discussed. I may point out -here that an express opponent of National Socialism, no less than the -former Prussian Minister of the Interior, Severing, testified as a -witness in the IMT trial that he had had no knowledge of the events in -the concentration camps, and he had different sources of information at -his disposal from Professor Schroeder. If Professor Schroeder had had -any idea of what happened in concentration camps while he was away from -Germany, then in view of his ideology as a faithful Christian, he would -have refused such contact with concentration camps arising out of -ordering these experiments. The decisive point in Schroeder’s favor is -that the experiments were not to be carried out under the supervision -and command of the SS camp leadership but completely separate, under the -special leadership of a Luftwaffe medical officer and recognized -specialist. As a further consideration, Professor Schroeder had to take -into account that a useful result could be achieved in these experiments -only if they could be carried out without interruption or hindrance. -Because of the then prevalent almost daily air raids over the whole of -Germany, no guarantee for an uninterrupted execution of these -experiments could be given in any spot in Germany. However, it was known -that air raids on concentration camps did not take place. Moreover, the -charge cannot be brought against Professor Schroeder that he chose a -concentration camp because he then had available defenseless tools who -perforce had to subject themselves to the experiments. The very opposite -is true. It was clear to Professor Schroeder that if he wanted to be -successful he could carry out these experiments only with voluntary -experimental subjects, for the director of the experiments was dependent -on the willing cooperation of the experimental subjects, since in no -other way could usable clinical data be achieved. Every involuntary -experimental subject would have had the power to drop out of the -experiment prematurely by feigning indisposition or pain, and, in this -way, would have caused the director of the experiment to terminate it -prematurely. - -For the further evaluation of Professor Schroeder’s conduct, his -conversation with the Reich Physician SS Grawitz must be considered -especially. Professor Schroeder expressed the opinion to Grawitz that he -could only work with healthy and voluntary experimental persons, whose -age corresponded to that of the pilots under his command, and he made -the further condition that the experimental persons should have the same -physiological and racial requisites as the members of the German -Wehrmacht in question. On direct examination, Professor Schroeder -testified under oath that in this connection he talked to Grawitz about -dishonorably discharged former members of the German Wehrmacht who, he -knew, had been transferred to concentration camps because of the -seriousness of their offenses. - -Professor Schroeder could not assume, nor was any report on the part of -Grawitz or the SS leadership made to him, that the SS leadership did not -accept this suggestion and that instead of former members of the German -Wehrmacht, gypsies had been decided upon for experimental purposes. -Professor Schroeder, from his point of view, could rely on Grawitz to -make arrangements according to his suggestions; he had no reason to -expect that the SS would decide upon experimental subjects, against his -well-founded wish, who, racially and physiologically did not have the -prerequisites demanded by Professor Schroeder. - -Because of the extremely heavy official duties caused for Professor -Schroeder in his capacity as chief medical officer by the imminent -collapse of German military resistance, this affair was only a small -segment of his official duties and it must be admitted that he could not -concern himself further with this affair. - -A further consideration which Professor Schroeder had to bear in mind -was whether such experiments were dangerous and possibly damaging to the -health of the experimental subjects. Professor Schroeder had thoroughly -studied this question and contemplated all possible aspects of the -problem. Professor Schroeder also knew that sea-water is used by doctors -for drinking cures and that the criterion of harmfulness depends on the -doses. If there was medical supervision then there would be no danger to -health. Therefore, the prosecution’s charge that he failed to take the -possible hazards sufficiently into account is not justified. - -Nothing shows the high degree of responsibility which characterized -Professor Schroeder more than the instructions which the medical -inspector issued to the man carrying out the experiments. - -Professor Schroeder was convinced that the experiments held no danger to -the experimental subjects and he expressed this opinion to Reich -Physician SS Grawitz. Such danger was excluded particularly if and when -the quantity of sea-water to be taken was regulated in accordance with -the best medical experiences, and when it was definitely ordered that -the experiments should be stopped at a certain time; and, furthermore, -if the selection of the man in charge of the experiments guaranteed, on -the basis of professional and ethical standards, that the experiments -would be carried out in a humane manner, taking into account all medical -and clinical considerations. - -Therefore, it is fully justified if Professor Schroeder claims that he, -from his position as a physician and a leading medical officer, -considered all possible situations and attempted to avert all possible -sources of danger as far as humanly possible. His direction to the man -in charge to discontinue the experiments as soon as the experimental -subject refused to take in further water, and if dangerous injury to the -body were recognizable, must be mentioned in Schroeder’s favor. The -person carrying out the experiments was furnished with all necessary -assistants and a number of special co-workers from medical circles as -well as all machinery to carry out his work in an orderly fashion. - -The contention that both the planning and preparation of the experiments -by Schroeder can stand any examination, that that planning was with full -moral responsibility and with a true feeling of duty and humanity was -reaffirmed, too, before this Tribunal by Professor Dr. Vollhardt, as -well as by the American expert, Professor Ivy. It is simply unthinkable -that instructions to one conducting experiments could be more correct -from a medical point of view than those which Professor Schroeder worked -out. - -By this plea and the evidence, all charges against Professor Schroeder -in the sea-water complex are refuted. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK_ - - * * * * * - - _The Persons Subjected to the Experiments_ - -As regards this subject [sea-water experiments] I want to put the -defendant’s statements first (_Tr. pp. 8703-4_): - - “DR. STEINBAUER: Did you have influence on the selection of the - experimental subjects? - - “DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: No. I was told at the Medical - Inspectorate that arrangements had been made with the SS, and - the SS in accordance with these arrangements would supply the - experimental subjects. I did not have to worry about that. - - “Q. Did you have orders to find out where the experimental - subjects came from and what the specified circumstances and - conditions were? - - “A. No. That too was not a decision that I could have made, nor - could the Luftwaffe. - - “Q. Did you know before that gypsies had been used? - - “A. I only found out that gypsies were coming into Dachau from - the camp commandant. * * * I, therefore, do not feel that I am - responsible either for the selection of the place where the - experiments were carried out nor for the selection of those - persons who were used.” - - Defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder states regarding this (_Tr. - pp. 3676-7_): [Transcriber Note: The text ends here. No further - statement printed in the original text.] - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - - “MR. MCHANEY: Did you say anything to Beiglboeck about the - experimental subjects? - - “DEFENDANT SCHROEDER: No. We only spoke about the matter as - such. I am not quite sure whether the question ‘concentration - camp’ was already established at that time. Please, why don’t - you ask Beiglboeck himself? I don’t know if it was before or - after 1 June. - - “Q. You didn’t say anything to Beiglboeck about making sure that - only German volunteers were used in the experiments? - - “A. That was a matter of course. There was no discussion about - it. It was no subject of discussion. There wasn’t anything to be - discussed. - - “Q. Well, you didn’t tell him that then? - - “A. I don’t know. I can’t tell you that under oath. I know that - there were volunteers; and I certainly did not say that they had - to be German because I didn’t take any other possibility into - consideration at all and couldn’t have said it. These are all - reconstructions which came up later, but at that time weren’t - subjects of discussion at all.” - -These were gypsies wearing the black badge of the asocials. The -defendant states that the Sturmbannfuehrer in charge of the shipment -told him that these persons were all asocials, who were interned on -account of punishable offenses and not for social reasons. As we read in -Kogon’s book “The SS State”[48] the black badge was in fact the -designation of the asocials. We see from Document NO-179, Prosecution -Exhibit 135, that SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe suggested as persons to be used -for the experiments asocial persons of mixed gypsy blood in Auschwitz -concentration camp, who were in good health but at the same time -unsuitable for labor. In the book on gypsies of the Royal Police -Directorate Munich 1905, (_Beiglboeck 28, Beiglboeck Ex. 11_), we read: - - “The greatest difficulty arises in securing a census of gypsies. - The majority of them make every effort to obscure their identity - through false statements or through a pretense of ignorance * * - *.” - -Their asocial character led to a series of police regulations, of which -the most important are the following, as far as Germany is concerned: - - Decree of 16 May 1938, RMB1.i.V. (_Bulletin of the Reich - Ministry of the Interior_) pages 883-4, concerning measures - against the gypsy nuisance. - - Decree of 8 December 1938, RMB1.i.V., page 2105, concerning - measures against the gypsy nuisance. - - Decree of 10 November 1939, RMB1.i.V., page 2339, concerning - employment records for gypsies. - - Decree of 2 September 1939, Reich Law Gazette, I, page 1578. - Prohibition of wandering of gypsies in the frontier zone[49] - (_Sec. 4 of the ordinance concerning frontier protection_). - -The witness Dorn states (_Tr. p. 8618_): - - “As far as I know, the brown sign was done away with in - Buchenwald in 1940 and all gypsies arrested for racial reasons - were asocial. In other words, from 1940 on, there were no - gypsies in the camp who were not designated in the filing system - as asocial, as unwilling to work.” - -The same witness states (_Tr. pp. 8661-2_): - - “I can merely say that initially all gypsies were arrested for - racial reasons. Later on this was changed. Some of the gypsies - who were not declared asocial elements were removed from Dachau - to the Labor House in the Rebdorf Bavarian penitentiary.”[50] - -The famous Swiss Psychiatrist E. Bleuler, Zuerich, writes in his -Textbook on Psychiatry, Berlin, Springer, 1937 on pages 397-400 about: - - _Constitutional ethnical deviations_ - - “* * * A large number of asocials show what type of character - they are while still young. Most of them are backward at school, - even if their intelligence is good, because they adjust - themselves too little and show too little industry and - attention. Extraordinary achievements in any single direction - are rare. Many of them are lazy, thieving, lying, cruel to - animals and people, exacting, often deliberately and negligently - damaging their own and others property, vain, unreliable, and - egotistical. They cannot submit to authority, run away if they - do not like anything; punishments are not respected, altogether - neither sugar plums nor the whip have any visible effects. When - carrying out mean tricks they develop cunning and energy, soon - learn from others what is bad, with difficulty or not at all - what is good, have an instinctive inclination for bad company.” - -I have not made any special reference to asocial character to point out -that we must be particularly careful when estimating their -trustworthiness, on account of their tendency to mendacity and because -of a certain psychotic cupidity concerning claims for compensation. This -is not necessary where the judges are so experienced; I am referring to -this fact for _legal_ reasons. It is well known that there is no legal -definition of crimes against humanity. According to legal authors, such -crimes can only be committed against persons who are persecuted for -political, religious, and racial reasons. - -To complete this chapter in its legal aspects, I would also like to -mention the racial regulation of the gypsy question as far as it can be -seen from German legislation. According to the 12th decree implementing -the Reich Citizenship Law, dated 25 April 1943 (_Reich Law Gazette I, p. -268_), gypsies who are not yet German citizens cannot acquire -citizenship. Section 4 of this decree reads: - - “Jews and gypsies cannot become citizens. They cannot become - citizens either subject to revocation, or protected persons * * - *.” - -According to the first decree implementing the Law for the Protection of -German Blood and German Honor of 14 November 1935 (_Reich Law Gazette I, -p. 1334_), marriage between gypsies and Germans is prohibited. Section 6 -of this decree reads: - - “A marriage shall furthermore not be contracted if the progeny - to be expected from it would endanger the purity of German - blood.” - -In all fairness, however, one must admit in this connection that in the -practice of the Third Reich no strict distinction seems to have been -made when gypsies were put in a concentration camp, so that we should -need the criminal record and family history of each person subjected to -the experiments to be able to ascertain accurately the asocial character -of each individual. It is a fact that in the gypsy book mentioned by me, -11 names of persons subjected to experiments are to be found, who must -no doubt be characterized as asocial. - - _Origin of the gypsies as to nationality_ - -As I have already mentioned, the gypsies themselves like to leave this -point vague. Therefore no point of the evidence contains so many -conflicting statements as this particular one. Beiglboeck himself cannot -make any definite statements as to this matter, but as he used to speak -to all of them, they must all have understood German. Among the names we -also find plenty of Slav names, having a Polish, Ukrainian, or Southern -Slav sound. In the old Austrian Monarchy, these people were jumbled -together a good deal and in their wanderings they also entered German -Reich territory. After the break-up of the Monarchy, some of the -so-called Carpatho-Russians became citizens of Hungary or Slovakia. In -the eastern provinces of the German Reich, there were many Poles or -Germanized persons with Polish names. The mere name, therefore, admits -of no conclusion as to nationality. The fact, however, that most of them -could make themselves understood in the German language allows the -conclusion that none of the persons subjected to experiments were -imported from the _Allied_ countries. - - * * * * * - -The witness Fritz Pillwein states in his affidavit (_Beiglboeck 32, -Beiglboeck Ex. 21_): - - “The experimental subjects in most cases spoke their gypsy - dialect. Many of them were obviously of Slav origin. I did not - see identification papers, however, as this was quite impossible - in a concentration camp and as I did not ask them anything of - the kind, I cannot make any exact statement regarding the - _nationality_ of the individual gypsies. I did not ask them - because the gypsies were very primitive people, and some of them - did not even know their own birthdays.” - -The witness Mettbach stated when questioned by Dr. Steinbauer (_Tr. p. -9729_): - - “DR. STEINBAUER: What language did you speak among yourselves? - - “WITNESS METTBACH: Mostly gypsy language. - - “Q. What was the citizenship of the individual experimental - subjects? - - “A. Mostly they were Germans. There were a lot of Austrians and - a lot of them came from East Prussia and Upper Silesia and the - Burgenland [Province bordering Austria-Hungary].” - -When questioned by counsel for the prosecution the witness Mettbach -stated (_Tr. pp. 9737-8_): - - “MR. HARDY: Were there any foreign nationals—that is, men other - than Germans—used in these experiments? - - “WITNESS METTBACH: Austrians and Burgenlaender and some from - Upper Silesia and East Prussia. - - “Q. No Czechs? - - “A. No. - - “Q. No Russians? - - “A. No. - - “Q. No Poles? - - “A. A couple of them talked Polish but I think they came from - Upper Silesia or East Prussia. That very often happens. Lots of - Upper Silesians can talk Polish.” - -When questioned by counsel for the prosecution the witness Joseph -Vorlicek stated (_Tr. p. 9388_): - - “MR. HARDY: Do you know the nationality of the various subjects? - - “WITNESS VORLICEK: For the most part I do. - - “Q. Can you tell the Tribunal the nationality of the various - subjects, as near as you can recollect? - - “A. There were Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, and - Germans.” - -During direct examination the witness Vorlicek stated (_Tr. p. 9388_): - - “MR. HARDY: Well, did they ever volunteer for any special - detachment or some such thing? - - “WITNESS VORLICEK: Well, this is how it happened. Since I know - the Slavonic language, and there were some Czechs among them, I - spoke to them.” - -Therefore, the defendant’s statement, that the persons concerned were -Slovaks from the Bratislava area (Bratislava is the capital of Slovakia) -is not without foundation. - - _The Rations of the Gypsies_ - -The defendant states that the persons subjected to the experiments got -the Luftwaffe flight rations before the experiments, and the same -rations after the experiments, and that there was a hitch only once due -to the bombing of the provisions warehouse. During the experiments, the -persons got shipwreck rations. The Englishman, Ladell also says that he -gave his soldiers shipwreck rations during the experiments. On this -point, see extract from Beiglboeck 20, Beiglboeck Exhibit 8: - - “* * * In all the experiments the food given was the ‘shipwreck - diet’; this comprises 1 ounce each per day of biscuits; - sweetened condensed milk; butter, fat, or margarine; and - chocolate.” - -That food was provided is evident from two documents. (_Beiglboeck 26, -Beiglboeck Ex. 13_; _Beiglboeck 27, Beiglboeck Ex. 14_.) - -The witness Massion states in his affidavit (_Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck -Ex. 12_): - - “Before beginning the experiment, the experimental subjects were - given the same food as that supplied to the flying personnel of - the Luftwaffe, that is to say, a very nutritious diet of - sardines, butter, cheese, milk, meat, etc. During the - experiment, 4 persons assigned to the thirst group received no - food whatsoever, the others received sea-emergency rations, with - chocolate, etc. I know that on one occasion difficulties arose - in the food supply which possibly were connected with an air - raid. I was sent to Frankfurt with the urgent order to obtain - sea-emergency rations there.” - - * * * * * - - _The Treatment of Gypsies_ - -Beiglboeck treated the experimental subjects in a humane manner. It is -natural that he insisted the strict observance of the whole experiment -was not to be a farce. The whole experiment was a constant struggle -against the understandable attitude of the experimental subjects who -wanted to save themselves by cheating the director of the experiment (by -secretly drinking water and pouring away the urine), and by obtaining -special favors, in particular cigarettes, which in 1944 were hard to -get—and that not only in the concentration camps. - -In regard to this point I refer to a document in which Professor Dr. -Dennig writes (_Beiglboeck 29, Beiglboeck Ex. 15_): - - “While the people are able for the first few days successfully - to fight their thirst with good grace, their strength of will is - insufficient during the later stage; they devise extremely - subtle means of obtaining water, e. g., the case of Juergensen.” - -Witness Ernst Mettbach states in regard to this point when questioned by -Dr. Steinbauer (_Tr. p 9722_): - - “DR. STEINBAUER: The professor forbade your bringing them water. - Did you nevertheless bring them water? Now, be honest. - - “WITNESS METTBACH: Several times I brought my relative, - Mettbach, water to drink. - - “Q. Where did you give it to him? - - “A. Sometimes I smuggled it in to the experimental station - myself. Sometimes I stuck it through the fly screen on the - window which was a little bit loose.” - -Later we shall speak in detail about the secret drinking of water. At -this point I just want to say in general that every drop of water which -was consumed in secret not only diminished the scientific value of the -experiments, but is also of greatest significance from the point of view -of criminal law, because it decreased the feeling of thirst. As I said -before, the treatment of the experimental subjects was a humane one. In -regard to this point compare the statement of Dr. Lesse (_Bieglboeck 14, -Bieglboeck Ex. 20_): - - “Q. What was his attitude to the prisoners in general? - - “A. Very humane and benevolent.” - -Witness Massion states in his affidavit (_Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck Ex. -12_): - - “Dr. Beiglboeck treated the prisoners as humanly as ordinary - patients. He was rough to them only when they obtained drinking - water contrary to orders. I know definitely that none of the - experimental subjects were turned over to the SS for punishment - because of any offenses.” - -Witness Pillwein states in his affidavit (_Beiglboeck 32, Beiglboeck Ex. -21_): - - “Q. How did Beiglboeck treat the inmates? - - “A. Beiglboeck treated the patients well, which was a striking - contrast to the treatment which we inmates received from the SS. - Beiglboeck only became very angry when the gypsies lied to him - regarding the drinking of water, and when he found out about it - from the blood test.” - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - Pros. - Doc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page - NO-184 132 Letter from the Technical Office of the Reich 447 - Minister of Aviation (Goering) to Himmler’s - office, 15 May 1944, concerning methods to - render sea-water potable. - NO-177 133 Minutes of conference at the Reich Ministry of 448 - Aviation, 20 May 1944, concerning methods - for making sea-water potable. - NO-185 134 Letter from Schroeder to Himmler and Grawitz, 452 - 7 June 1944, requesting subjects for - sea-water experiments. - NO-183 136 Teletype from Rudolf Brandt to Grawitz, 453 - undated, concerning experimental subjects. - NO-182 137 Letter from Sievers to Grawitz, 24 July 1944, 454 - concerning experiments on the potability of - sea-water. - - _Defense Documents_ - - Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document -Becker-Freyseng Becker-Freyseng Affidavit of Dr. Ludwig 455 - 42 Ex. 29 Harriehausen, 9 January 1947, - regarding use of patients in - sea-water experiments. - - _Testimony_ - -Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Karl 456 - Hoellenrainer -Extracts from the testimony of defendant Beiglboeck 468 -Extracts from the testimony of defense expert witness Dr. Franz 474 - Vollhardt - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-184 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 132 - - LETTER FROM THE TECHNICAL OFFICE OF THE REICH MINISTER OF AVIATION -(GOERING) TO HIMMLER’S OFFICE, 15 MAY 1944, CONCERNING METHODS TO RENDER - SEA WATER POTABLE - - [Stamped] Secret - -[Letterhead] -Reich Minister of Aviation -and Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe -Technical Office -Ref. Nrs. 91a, 0016 GL/C-E (51V) -_No: 26 773 secret_ -(In your answer to the above -reference, please give date and -short summary.) - - Berlin W 8, 15 May 1944 - Leipziger Strasse 7 - Cable address: Reichsluft Berlin - Phones: Local: 520024 - 218241 - 120047 - Long distance: 218011 - Extension: 4335 - -Re: Rendering sea-water potable. -Reference: Letter of the Reich Leader SS - No. 39/4/44 secret of 17 January 1944. -To: Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police, -Personal Staff. -Berlin - -With reference to the interoffice conference between Oberstingenieur -Christensen and Haupsturmfuehrer Engineer Dohle regarding the -above-mentioned matter, it is announced that two processes have been -worked out by the office to render sea-water potable: - -1. The I. G. method, using mainly silver nitrate. For this process quite -a large plant needs to be set up, which would require about 200 tons of -iron and cost about 250,000 RM. The amount of the product needed by the -Luftwaffe and Navy requires 2.5 to 3 tons of pure silver a month. -Besides, the water which is rendered potable by this preparation has to -be sucked through a filter in order to avoid absorption of precipitated -chemicals. These facts make the application of this process practically -impossible. - -2. The second process which was worked out is the so-called Berka -method. According to this method, the salts present in the sea-water are -not precipitated, but are so treated that they are not disagreeable to -the taste. They pass through the body without oversaturating it with -salts and without causing an undue thirst. No special plants are -necessary for producing preparations needed for this process; nor do the -preparations themselves consist of scarce materials. - -It can be presumed that this method will be introduced in the Luftwaffe -and the navy in a short time. Now that German technical science has -actually succeeded in rendering sea-water potable for people in distress -at sea, in accordance with the above, the knowledge as to how foreign -countries intend to solve this problem is no longer of prime importance. -Naturally the office is very much interested in ascertaining how, above -all, the United States has solved this problem, and it is requested that -this information be sought, without, however, compromising any person or -any office too much. - -Should the office there be interested in the Berka method, let us know. -Samples can then be delivered. - -The cube dispensed is not a preparation to render sea-water potable, but -a milk cube such as is already familiar to the offices. - - [Signature illegible] - -Enclosure: [Notation: both crossed out] - - 1 Milk cube - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-177 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 133 - - MINUTES OF CONFERENCE AT THE REICH MINISTRY OF AVIATION, 20 MAY 1944, - CONCERNING METHODS FOR MAKING SEA WATER POTABLE - - Personal Staff RF-SS. - Filing Department, File No./220/5 - -Technical Office - GL/C-E 5 IV No. 26860/44 secret - - Berlin, 23 May 1944 - [Handwritten] W 29.6 - -[Handwritten]: - - Just received - for reading given - to RF [Himmler] - - [Signature] R. Br. [Rudolf Brandt] -Reichsarzt SS 4/July -Minutes of the conference on 20 May 1944 re methods for making sea-water - drinkable - -Present: - - * * * * * - -10. Oberstingenieur Christensen German Air Ministry— - GL/C-E 5 IV 120047/28 -11. Stabsingenieur Dr. Schickler dto. 120047/4335 -12. Stabsingenieur Berka E-Tra Vienna - B 23566 -13. Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng Chief Medical 278313 - Service -14. Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer Luftwaffe Medical - Research 27 83 13 - Institute - -I. On 19 May 1944 a preliminary discussion was held at the Reich Air -Ministry—GL/C-E 5 IV. Present were the following persons: - -GL/C-E 5 IV Obersting. Christensen -dto. Stabsing. Dr. Schickler -E-Tra. Stabsing. Berka -L. In. 14 Major Jeworrek -Chief of the Medical Service Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng - [Office] -dto. Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer - Herr Pahl. - -At this meeting Captain (med.) Dr. Becker-Freyseng reported on the -clinical experiments conducted by Colonel (med.) Dr. von Sirany and came -to the final conclusion that he did not consider them as being -unobjectionable and conclusive enough for a final decision. The Chief of -the Medical Service is convinced that, if the Berka method is used, -damage to health has to be expected not later than 6 days after taking -Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent injuries to health -and—according to the opinion of N. C. O. (med.) Dr. Schaefer—will -finally result in death after not later than 12 days. - -External symptoms are to be expected such as drainage, diarrhea, -convulsions, hallucinations, and finally death. As a result of the -preliminary discussion it was agreed to arrange a new series of -experiments of short duration. A commission was to be set up for the -arrangement of these series of experiments. This commission should be -set up together with the High Command of the Navy at the conference on -20 May 1944. - -The series of experiments should include the following: - - 1. _a._ Persons to be given sea-water processed with Berka method. - _b._ Persons to be given ordinary drinking [Shorthand notation]: - water. - One copy to be submitted - to the ministry. - _c._ Persons without any drinking water at all. - _d._ Persons given water treated according to the present method. (0.7 - liters of drinking water for 4 persons and 4 days.) - -For the duration of the experiments all persons will receive only an -emergency sea diet such as is provided for persons in distress at sea. - - _Duration of experiments_: Maximum 6 days - -In addition to these experiments a further experiment should be -conducted as follows: - -2. Persons nourished with sea-water and Berkatit, and as diet also the -emergency sea rations. - - _Duration of experiments_: 12 days - -Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service permanent -injuries to health—that is, the death of the experimental -subjects—have to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons -should be used as will be put at the disposal by the Reichsfuehrer SS. - -Herr Pahl reports that due to the latest improvements in the I. G. -Farben method, smaller quantities of iron are needed for the -construction of the manufacturing equipment than were originally -provided for and estimated by I. G. Herr Pahl reports further that if -the Wofatit equipment which has to be constructed could not be used -later for the manufacturing of the sea-water preparation another use -would be quite possible. As to the silver problem GL/C-E 5 IV will check -whether the necessary quantities of silver are available. - -With GL/C-B 5 it is to be determined whether the same quantities of the -preparations will be required as heretofore. - -II. At the main conference on 20 May 1944, Stabsingenieur Dr. Schickler -will report on work done since the last conference, especially re the -results of the preliminary discussion described in part I. - -The navy emphasizes that it is considered to be of great importance to -obtain a method which under the given conditions could be introduced at -once without undue delay. In the opinion of the navy the results -obtained at the clinical experiments are sufficient, since they are -mainly interested in being able to nourish their men 3 to 5 days with -the preparation. A longer nourishing period up to 12 days would probably -only be necessary in very few cases. But in spite of this the High -Command of the Navy agrees that the series of experiments, as proposed -by the Chief of the Medical Service in paragraph 1, should still be -carried out. - -These series of experiments should be finished and reported on not later -than the end of June. During this period all preparations are to be made -for the commencement of production according to the Berka method at a -date not later than July 1st 1944, and also, if the I. G. method should -be introduced, for the start of the construction of the necessary -manufacturing equipment by the I. G. - -The commission which has to determine the conditions for the series of -experiments still to be conducted is composed as follows: - - Professor Eppinger, Vienna, Representative of the Chief of the - Medical Service of the Air Force - - Representative of the German Air Ministry GL/C - - Representative of the High Command of the Navy - -Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng is being contemplated as representative of -the Chief of the Medical Service. Stabsingenieur Dr. Schickler and -Stabsingenieur Berka as representatives of GL; and Professor Orzichowski -as representative of the High Command of the Navy. - -It was decided that Berlin, Reich Air Ministry GL/C-E 5 IV should be the -meeting place of the commission. (The originally proposed meeting place -was changed from Munich to Berlin after a telephone call from Dr. -Becker-Freyseng); and that the meeting should be on 25 May 1944 at 10:00 -a. m. - -It was decided that Dachau was to be the place where the experiments -should be conducted. - -Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng would invite Professor Eppinger and would -get in touch with the Reich Leader SS. The High Command of the Navy -would invite Professor Orzichowski. - -_Distribution_: - -High Command of the Navy—Medical Department - -High Command of the Navy, Department for Research, Inventions and -Patents - -Research Operation of the Reich Ministry for Aviation and High Command -of the Luftwaffe - -For information of: - -Medical Experimentation and Instruction Division of the Air Force -Jueterbog - -E-Office Rechlin (E med) - -Institute for Aviation Medicine, - -D. V. L., Berlin-Adlershof - -L. In. 14. 1. Abt. 2 Abt., Gruppe 3, KTB - -Reich Leader SS - -Technical Academy, Vienna - - [Signature] C. CHRISTENSEN - [Handwritten] - _A—_ - RSHA. Through asocial gypsies - GERHABDT. - - [Stamp] -Personal Staff RFSS—enclosures received on: 12 June 1944 -Journal No. 39/4/44g. -to: - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-185 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 134 - - LETTER FROM SCHROEDER TO HIMMLER AND GRAWITZ, 7 JUNE 1944, REQUESTING - SUBJECTS FOR SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS - - [handwritten] Top Secret - -Chief Medical Service of the Luftwaffe -File: 55 Nr. 510/44 top secret (2F). - - Saalow, 7 June 1944 - ueber Zossen/Land - 2 Copies—1st copy - -To the Reich Minister of the Interior and Reich Leader SS _through_ -Reich Physician SS and Police - -Berlin W, Knesebeckstr. 51 - -Highly respected Reich Minister! - -Earlier already you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to settle urgent -medical matters through experiments on human beings. Today again I stand -before a decision which, after numerous experiments on animals as well -as human experiments on voluntary experimental subjects, demands a final -solution. The Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods for -making sea-water potable. The one method, developed by a medical -officer, removes the salt from the sea-water and transforms it into real -drinking water; the second method, suggested by an engineer, leaves the -salt content unchanged, and only removes the unpleasant taste from the -sea-water. The latter method, in contrast to the first, requires no -critical raw material. From the medical point of view this method must -be viewed critically, as the administration of concentrated salt -solutions can produce severe symptoms of poisoning. - -As the experiments on human beings could thus far only be carried out -for a period of 4 days, and as practical demands require a remedy for -those who are in distress at sea up to 12 days, appropriate experiments -are necessary. - -Required are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available for 4 whole -weeks. As it is known from previous experiments that necessary -laboratories exist in the concentration camp Dachau, this camp would be -very suitable. - -Direction of the experiments is to be taken over by Stabsarzt Dr. -Beiglboeck, civilian; Chief Physician of the Medical University Clinic -in Vienna, Professor Dr. Eppinger. After receipt of your basic approval, -I shall list by name the other physicians who are to participate, in the -experiments. - -Due to the enormous importance which a solution of this problem has for -shipwrecked men of the Luftwaffe and navy, I would be greatly obliged to -you, my dear Reich Minister, if you would decide to comply with my -request. - - Heil Hitler! - [Signature] SCHROEDER - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-183 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 136 - -TELETYPE FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO GRAWITZ, UNDATED, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTAL - SUBJECTS - - [stamp] Top Secret - -_Teletype_: - -To the Reich Physician SS and Police SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, -Berlin - -Subject: Experiments by the Chief of the Medical Service of the -Luftwaffe. - -Reference: Your letter of 28 June 1944—Journal Number 13/44 secret - -Obergruppenfuehrer! - -The Reich Leader SS has decided that in accordance with the suggestion -of SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, gypsies should be used for the experiments. -In addition, three other prisoners will be made available. - - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] BRANDT - SS Standartenfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-182 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 137 - -LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO GRAWITZ, 24 JULY 1944, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS ON - THE POTABILITY OF SEA WATER - -Reich Leader SS -Personal Staff “Office-A” - - (13a) Waischenfeld/Ofr. - No. 135, Tel. No. 2 - 24 July 1944 - - Secret - -SS Standardtenfuehrer Ministerialrat Dr. Brandt, for Information. - -To SS Obergruppenfuehrer Reich Physician SS and Police Dr. Grawitz - -Berlin W 15, Knesbeckstr. 51 - - [Handwritten remark] - Gbl 29.7 - -Subject: Experiments on the potability _of sea-water_. - -Refer: Your letter of 11 July 1944, Journal No. 13/SS top secret - -Dear Obergruppenfuehrer! - -I want to inform you about my talks with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. -Ploetner and Chief Physician Beiglboeck in Dachau on 20 July. There will -be employed: 1 person in charge, 3 medical chemists, 1 female assistant, -3 ranks for supervision. Prospective time: 3 weeks. In our research -station only the 40 experimental persons can be accommodated, otherwise -there is absolutely insufficient room since the Ploetner section is -fully occupied and work cannot be interrupted. Our laboratory is -insufficiently equipped, since some essential equipment is wanting. In -spite of serious difficulties, the following agreement was arrived at: -1. In the Ploetner section a desk will be reserved (in the laboratory). -2. The remaining rooms will be placed at our disposal in our -Entomological Institute for a period of 3 weeks. Equipment needed must -be provided by the Luftwaffe. Thus it will be assured that the female -assistants can work in Dachau too, because the Entomological Institute -is located outside the concentration camp. 3. Billet must be arranged -between Chief Physician Dr. Beiglboeck and the commandant’s office, -since we have no billets at our disposal. 4. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. -Ploetner will give his assistance, help, and advice. He was, however, -not selected for internal guidance, because this is being done by the -Luftwaffe physicians themselves. - -The experiments are to begin on July 23 if experimental persons are -available by then and the camp commandant is in possession of the -required order of the Reich Leader SS. Dr. Beiglboeck himself wanted to -get in touch with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Frowein, Adjutant of the Reich -Physician SS, on this subject. - -I hope that this arrangement may permit a successful conduct of the -experiments. When the results are reported at the proper time, please -arrange to point out the participation and assistance of the Reich -Leader SS. - - With best regards and - Heil Hitler! - [Signature] SIEVERS - SS Standartenfuehrer - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF BECKER-FREYSENG DOCUMENT 42 BECKER-FREYSENG - DEFENSE EXHIBIT 29 - - AFFIDAVIT OF DR. LUDWIG HARRIEHAUSEN, 9 JANUARY 1947, REGARDING USE OF - PATIENTS IN SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS - - * * * * * - -Dr. Schroeder, as my superior, often visited the hospitals in my charge, -especially the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick of which I had been -medical superintendent since 1942. - - * * * * * - -I recall very well that I was once asked whether it would be possible to -carry out control experiments with sea-water, made drinkable by various -methods, on patients suffering from minor complaints and the slightly -wounded in the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick which was under my -supervision. Whether Professor Dr. Schroeder or one of his -representatives put this question to me, and at what exact time, I -cannot recall exactly. It could have been in June 1944. I had to refuse -the undertaking of such experiments, as I had strict orders to send all -patients and wounded who could be released back to the troops; thus I -did not have at my disposal hospital inmates suitable for these -experiments. Furthermore, the hospital was overcrowded at this time and -was, therefore, not suitable for scientific experiments. I can also -recall clearly that, at a later time, I again spoke to Professor Dr. -Schroeder about this matter, and that he expressed his regret on this -occasion that these experiments could not be carried out in the -Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick which was under my direction. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS KARL - HOELLENRAINER[51] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. HARDY: Now, Witness, for what reasons were you arrested by the -Gestapo on 29 May 1944? - -WITNESS HOELLENRAINER: Because I am a gypsy of mixed blood. - -Q. And after your arrest you were sent to the Auschwitz concentration -camp? - -A. Yes. - -Q. How long did you remain in Auschwitz? - -A. About 4 weeks. - -Q. And then where were you placed? - -A. I was sent to Buchenwald. - -Q. How long did you stay in Buchenwald? - -A. I only stayed there for a few days. - -Q. And then what happened to you? - -A. I was in Buchenwald, and suddenly our numbers were called. Forty men -were called out, including me, and we were told that we were going to -Dachau to work. As soon as we arrived at Dachau we were put in a -quarantine block. One day an SS man came and wrote down our numbers, and -then we were X-rayed. Afterwards they sent us to the surgical department -of a certain Luftwaffe doctor. I am afraid I can’t remember the -physician’s name. I know that he was in the Luftwaffe and that he was an -Austrian. He examined all of us, and then we were divided into groups -for a sea-water experiment. - -Q. Just a moment, Witness. I now want to ask you some brief questions -concerning what you have just told us. You state that you went to Dachau -to work. Did you consider going to Dachau to be good fortune? - -A. Yes; a friend of mine, a gypsy, had already been to Dachau, and he -told me that the situation was much better and that we would get better -food. But that was not the case. - -Q. Well, did you understand what you were to do when you went to Dachau, -what type of work was it, bomb disposal or removal? - -A. Yes. We went there to work. - -Q. Did you understand that you were going to Dachau to volunteer for -sea-water experiments? - -A. No, never. - -Q. Now, upon arrival in Dachau you then went to the quarantine block, is -that correct? - -A. Yes. - -Q. You stayed there for a day or two and were given a physical -examination? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Did you also get an X-ray examination? - -A. Yes. - -Q. And then you were transferred to the experimental block? - -A. Yes. - -Q. And there you met a professor or a doctor? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Do you think you would be able to recognize that doctor if you saw -him today? - -A. Yes, immediately. I would recognize him at once. - -Q. Would you kindly stand up from your witness chair, take your -earphones off, and proceed over to the defendants’ dock, and see if you -can recognize the professor that you met at Dachau? - -(Witness leaves the stand.) - -Q. Walk right over, please. - -(Witness attempts assault on the defendant Beiglboeck.) - -MR. HARDY: The prosecution apologizes for the conduct of the witness, -your Honors. Due to the manner of this examination, the prosecution will -have no further questions, your Honors. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The marshal will keep the witness guarded before -the Tribunal. - -DR. STEINBAUER (counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): I have no -questions to put to the witness. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Will the marshal bring the witness before the bar -of this Court? Will an interpreter come up here who can translate to the -witness? - -Witness, you were summoned before this Tribunal as a witness to give -evidence. - -WITNESS HOELLENRAINER: Yes. - -Q. This is a court of justice. - -A. Yes. - -Q. And by your conduct in attempting to assault the defendant Beiglboeck -in the dock, you have committed a contempt of this Court. - -A. Your Honors, please excuse my conduct. I am very excited. - -Q. Ask the witness if he has anything else to say in extenuation of his -conduct. - -A. Your Honors, please excuse me. I am so worked up. That man is a -murderer. He has ruined my whole life. - -Q. Your statements afford no extenuation of your conduct. You have -committed a contempt in the presence of the Court, and it is the -judgment of this Tribunal that you be confined in the Nuernberg prison -for the period of 90 days as punishment for the contempt which you have -exhibited before this Tribunal. - -A. Would the Tribunal please forgive me. I am married and I have a small -son. This man is a murderer. He gave me salt water and he performed a -liver puncture on me. I am still under medical treatment. Please do not -send me to prison. - -Q. That is no extenuation. The contempt before this Court must be -punished. People must understand that a court is not to be treated in -that manner. Will the marshal call a guard and remove the prisoner to -serve the sentence which this Court has inflicted for contempt? It is -understood that the defendant is not to be confined at labor. He is -simply to be confined in the prison, having committed a contempt in open -court by attempting to assault one of the defendants in the dock. - -MR. HARDY: At this time, your Honor, the prosecution will request a -brief recess, if your Honors please. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Very well, the Tribunal will be in recess for a -moment. - -(A recess was taken.) - - * * * * * - -THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session. [1 July 1947.] - -MR. HARDY: The prosecution wishes to recall the witness Karl -Hoellenrainer to the witness stand, your Honors. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The marshal will summon the witness -Hoellenrainer. - -(The witness Karl Hoellenrainer took the stand.) - -JUDGE SEBRING: You will raise your right hand and be sworn. I swear by -God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and -will withhold and add nothing. - -(Witness repeated the oath.) - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel may proceed. - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - -MR. HARDY: Witness, your name again is Karl Hoellenrainer? - -WITNESS HOELLENRAINER: Yes. - -Q. Witness, at the close of your testimony the other day, you were -proceeding to tell the Tribunal about your activities after your arrival -at the Dachau concentration camp? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, when did you arrive for the first time at the Dachau -concentration camp? - -A. That was about the middle of July. - -Q. And then you stayed at the camp hospital for a period of 1 or 2 days? - -A. In Auschwitz? - -Q. No, in Dachau, after your arrival? - -A. Yes, yes, in Dachau. - -Q. And then you were examined physically and also X-rayed? - -A. Yes. - -Q. After you had been physically examined and X-rayed, what happened to -you? - -A. Then, we came into the so-called surgical department. We were 40 men. -Then a Luftwaffe doctor came and examined us. We had to take our clothes -off and stand in line. Then he said, “Well, you will be given good food, -such as you have never had, and then you won’t get anything to eat at -all, and you will have to drink sea-water.” One of the prisoners whose -name was Rudi Taubmann jumped up and refused. He was in an experiment, a -cold-water experiment, and he didn’t want to be in any more experiments. -The doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “If you are not quiet, and want to -rebel, I will shoot you on the spot.” The doctor from the Luftwaffe -always had a pistol, and then we were all quiet. For about one week we -got cookies, rusks, and brown sugar. There were about 21 little cookies, -and three or four little pieces of dextrose. Otherwise, we got nothing. -The 8 days— - -Q. Just a moment. Did you at any time volunteer for these experiments? - -A. No. - -Q. Were you asked whether or not you wished to volunteer for the -experiments? - -A. No. - -Q. Were any of the other inmates asked if they would like to volunteer? - -A. No. - -Q. Was the young Mettbach a volunteer, the youngest Mettbach? - -A. I know only one Ernst Mettbach from Fuerth, but I don’t know whether -he volunteered. - -Q. Was Ernst Mettbach in the experiments throughout; that is, did he -complete the experiments? - -A. No, he was only there a short time, 2 or 3 days maybe. Then, the -doctor from the Luftwaffe put him out, and where he went I don’t know. - -Q. Now, did the professor ask anyone for his approval before he was -subjected to the sea-water experiments? - -A. No. - -Q. Did the professor or any of the other Luftwaffe physicians talk to -the inmates and advise them as to the hazards of the experiment prior to -the commencement of the actual experiments? - -A. No. - -Q. Now, will you, in detail, tell the Tribunal just what food the -experimental subjects received prior to the experiments, during the -course of the experiments, and after the experiments, and in doing so, -Witness, kindly talk very slowly and distinctly so that the interpreters -will be able to translate you more efficiently. - -A. Yes. At first we got potatoes, milk, and then we got these cookies -and dextrose and rusks. That lasted about 1 week. Then we got nothing at -all. Then the doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “Now, you have to drink -sea-water on an empty stomach.” That lasted about 1 or 2 weeks. This -Rudi Taubmann, as I already said, got excited and didn’t want to -participate; and the doctor from the Luftwaffe said, “If you get excited -and mutiny, I will shoot you,” and then we were all quiet. Then we began -to drink sea-water. I drank the worst kind, that was yellowish. We drank -two or three times a day, and then in the evening we drank the yellow -kind. There were three kinds of water, white water, and yellow water -[two kinds]; and I drank the yellow kind. After a few days the people -became raving mad; they foamed at the mouth. The doctor from the -Luftwaffe came with a cynical laugh and said, “Now it is time to make -the liver punctures.” I remember one very well. - -Q. Talk more slowly, Witness. Thank you. - -A. Yes. The first row on the left when you came in, the second bed, that -was the first one. He went crazy and barked like a dog. He foamed at the -mouth. The doctor from the Luftwaffe took him down on a stretcher with a -white sheet over him, and then he stuck a needle about this long -(indicating) into his right side, and there was a hypodermic needle on -it, and it bled, and it was very painful. We were all quiet and excited. -When that was over, the other inmates took their turn. The people were -crazy from thirst and hunger, we were so hungry—but the doctor had no -pity on us. He was as cold as ice. He didn’t take any interest in us. -Then, one gypsy—I don’t know his name any more—ate a little piece of -bread once, or drank some water; I don’t remember just what he did. The -doctor from the Luftwaffe got very angry and mad. He took the gypsy and -tied him to a bed post and sealed his mouth. - -Q. Witness, do you mean that he put adhesive tape over this gypsy’s -mouth? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Go ahead, continue. - -A. Then a gypsy, he was lying on the right, a big strong, husky fellow, -he refused to drink the water. He asked the doctor from the Luftwaffe to -let him go. He said he couldn’t stand the water. He was sick. The doctor -from the Luftwaffe had no pity, and he said, “No, you have to drink it.” -The doctor from the Luftwaffe told one of his assistants to go and get a -sun. Naturally, we didn’t know what a sun was. Then one of his -assistants came with a red tube about this long (indicating) and thrust -this tube first into the gypsy’s mouth and then into his stomach. - -Q. Just a moment. That tube was how long? How long would that be, a half -a meter long? - -A. About this long (indicating). - -Q. That will be about a half a meter? - -A. Yes, about a half a meter. And then the doctor from the Luftwaffe -took this red tube and put it in the gypsy’s mouth and into his stomach. -And then he pumped water down the tube. The gypsy kneeled in front of -him and beseeched him for mercy but that doctor had none. - -Q. Witness, during the experiments was your temperature taken? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Who took your temperatures? - -A. There were two Frenchmen, one tall thin and one short blond one; and -they took the temperatures and the doctor from the Luftwaffe took the -temperatures, too. - -Q. When you say “the doctor from the Luftwaffe” you mean the man you -referred to as the “professor.” The professor and the doctor from the -Luftwaffe are the same or are they two different people? - -A. Yes. - -Q. I see. Thank you. Now, who performed the liver punctures? - -A. The doctor from the Luftwaffe carried out the liver punctures -himself. Some people were given liver punctures and at the same time a -puncture in the spinal cord. The doctor from the Luftwaffe did that -himself. It was very painful. Something ran out at the same time at the -back. It was water or something—I don’t know what it was. - -Q. Well, did you receive a liver puncture? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Did the professor tell you for what reason he gave you that liver -puncture? - -A. The doctor from the Luftwaffe came to me and said, “Now, -Hoellenrainer, it’s your turn.” I was lying on the bed. I was very weak -from this water and from not having anything to eat. He said, “Now, lie -on your left side and take the clothes off your right side.” I held on -to the bedstead on top of me and the doctor from the Luftwaffe sat down -next to me and pushed a long needle into me. It was very painful. I -said, “Doctor, what are you doing?” The doctor said, “I have to make a -liver puncture so that the salt comes out of your liver.” - -Q. Now, Witness, can you tell us whether or not the subjects used in the -experiments were gypsies of purely German nationality or were there some -Polish gypsies, some Russian gypsies, Czechoslovak gypsies, and so -forth? - -A. Yes, there were about seven or eight Germans and the rest of them -were all Poles and Czechs, Czech gypsies and Polish gypsies. - -Q. Were any of the experimental subjects ever taken out of the station -room to the yard outside the experimental barracks? - -A. Yes, at the end when the experiments were all finished; and three -people were carried out with white sheets over them on a stretcher. They -were covered with sheets but I don’t know whether they were dead or not. -But we, my colleagues and I, talked about it. We never saw these three -again, neither at work nor anywhere in the camp. We often talked about -it and wondered where they were. We never saw them again. We thought -that they were dead. - -Q. Do you know where they were taken? - -A. No, I don’t know. - -Q. Well, during the course of the experiments were you weighed every -day? - -A. Yes. We were weighed, too. - -Q. Was that every day or every other day? - -A. I don’t remember exactly. - -Q. Well, now, after the completion of the experiments in early September -what happened to you? - -A. When we had finished the experiments? - -Q. Yes. - -A. I told you that already. We were sent to the hospital and the doctor -from the Luftwaffe came and said we were to take our clothes off and we -lined up and were divided into three groups. The doctor from the -Luftwaffe said, “Now you will be given good food. You have never had -such good food.” We were given potatoes, dextrose, cookies, milk— - -Q. Just a minute, Witness. I am referring to the end of the experiments, -after the experiments were all completed. Could you tell us what date -your experiments were completed and you were transferred from the -experimental station? - -A. The experiment lasted, maybe, 4 or 5 weeks altogether. I don’t know -the date. - -Q. Well, then, they were completed in early September. Is that correct? -You arrived— - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, after the experiments were completed did you then return to the -camp proper or to the camp hospital? - -A. No, to the camp, into Block 22. We couldn’t walk. We all had to -support each other. We were exhausted. I forgot to tell you one thing. -Before we began the experiments and we had this good food for about one -week, the doctor took us out into the courtyard near the hospital. The -doctor from the Luftwaffe came. He had a little bottle in his hand and -we all had to line up. There was some liquid in the bottle and he put a -number on our chest. I had number “23.” It burned a lot. Then we went -back into the block. On every bed there was a number, the same number we -had on our chests. One man—but I don’t remember who it was—one of the -inmates, said: “That is what they call the death number.” I was pretty -scared and the inmates said, “Yes, that is the death number so that the -doctor of the Luftwaffe will know right away who is dead.” - -We didn’t want to go on with the experiments but what choice did we -have? We were just poor prisoners. Nobody bothered about us. We had to -let them do with us what they wanted. We couldn’t resist. I haven’t got -the power to relate everything as it— - -Q. All right. Just a moment. Was your bed number “23”? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Then you were considered to be experimental subject number 23? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Were you sick during the course of the experiments, Witness? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, Witness, after the completion of the experiments in early -September were you then called in and weighed to determine your weight -about 2 weeks later? - -A. No, not after 2 weeks. - -Q. Were you called in and weighed 1 week after you had completed the -experiments? Do you remember? - -A. I don’t remember. But we were weighed. - -Q. You were weighed every day during the experiments? - -A. Yes. - -Q. What I want to know is, were you weighed after the completion of the -experiments? For instance, you were weighed every day during the -experiments; then the experiments were completed; then you were not -weighed again for a period of 1 or 2 weeks. Did you get weighed 1 or 2 -weeks after the completion of the experiments? - -A. When the experiment was all finished? No. - -Q. Well, now after you left the experimental block and went to the camp -how long was it before you were able to resume work? - -A. A few days. Then we were sent in a detachment to a farm in -Feldmochingen. We had to work hard and the food was better than in the -camp but, you know, if you are a prisoner, what did the farmers give -you? A little bread, some soup—but, in any case it was better than in -the camp; and then every evening we came back to our block and then we -got the regular camp food. - - * * * * * - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. STEINBAUER: When you were examined the first time you said that you -had no previous convictions. Do you maintain this assertion? - -WITNESS HOELLENRAINER: No, I have been convicted. - -Q. Then why did you lie? - -A. I did not lie. I meant from the experiments. - -Q. The question was whether before you came to the Gestapo you had ever -been convicted and punished by the police. Nothing was mentioned about -experiments at that time. That’s an excuse. Do you admit that you lied? -It’s much better for you. - -A. No. I did not lie. - -Q. Well, you have been convicted? - -A. Yes. - -Q. For theft? - -A. Yes. - -Q. For fraud? - -A. Yes. - -Q. For assault? - -A. Yes. - -Q. For blackmail? - -A. What do you mean by that? - -Q. Well, coercion. - -A. No. - -Q. For using a false name? - -A. No. I never used a false name. - -Q. You have to speak more slowly. We will come back to that. You were -arrested then for desertion? - -A. Yes. - -Q. You were prosecuted for desertion? - -A. Yes. - -Q. You refused to obey your draft order? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Isn’t that why you were sent to the concentration camp? - -A. No, I was sent to the concentration camp merely because I am a gypsy. -My brothers were in the war and they came back from Russia and were sent -to Sachsenhausen and were murdered there, because there weren’t supposed -to be any more gypsies in the German Army. - -Q. What kind of a badge did you wear in the camp? - -A. A black one. - -Q. You and your wife, too, have stated that you participated in malaria, -phlegmon, typhoid, and sea-water experiments? - -A. No, only this one experiment, no malaria. - -Q. Do you admit that you lied to the young doctor who talked to you? - -A. No, I didn’t lie to the doctor. I just told him the exact truth. My -wife and I weren’t allowed to marry. My wife had a child from me and it -was cremated in Birkenau. My sister was cremated and both her children. - -Q. Don’t get excited. I asked you whether you told the young doctor that -you were in four different experiments. All you have to say is yes or -no. - -A. I told the doctor I drank salt water. - -Q. Listen, Herr Hoellenrainer, don’t be evasive as gypsies usually are. -Give me a clear answer as a witness under oath. Did you tell the doctor -that you participated in other experiments, yes or no? - -A. No. I just drank salt water. - -MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the testimony of this doctor is not in evidence -before this Tribunal. I don’t understand what Dr. Steinbauer is -referring to. - - * * * * * - -DR. STEINBAUER: You said you were in Auschwitz? - -WITNESS HOELLENRAINER: Yes. - -Q. Were you in the Birkenau extermination camp? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Were the gypsies in a big camp there? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Were there women and children there? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Did you have a wife there? - -A. Yes, my fiancee, Ida Schmidt. She was gassed. She was burned to -death. I never saw her again. - -Q. Didn’t you once beat your wife until the blood spurted out on to the -wall? - -A. No. - -Q. Did you ever beat her? - -A. No. - - * * * * * - -Q. I asked you whether what I have just read to you is true, that you -were divided up and your numbers were called out, etc.? - -A. We weren’t asked at all. Forty of us were collected together and we -were sent to Dachau. - -Q. Now, I have to tell you that your countryman—he is from Fuerth too, -called Mettbach—said that he talked to you and particularly said that -he wanted to go to Dachau because it was nearer Fuerth than Buchenwald; -is that true? - -A. That might be. I didn’t mind going to Dachau either because my -brother lived in Munich. - -Q. Then you did go voluntarily? - -A. No, I did not. - -Q. How does it happen that Laubinger said something else? Laubinger said -you were deceived, that is why you volunteered? - -A. No, I never volunteered. I certainly wouldn’t volunteer for these -death experiments. - -Q. Well, you went to Dachau? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Do you know the old Herzberg? - -A. No. - -Q. You don’t remember the gypsy from Bratislava? - -A. No. - -Q. Who was the oldest gypsy? - -A. I don’t remember. - -Q. You were with your comrades for weeks and don’t know their names? - -A. No. - -Q. It is possible that Mettbach did not know all the names then, isn’t -it? - -A. How should I know? I did not have time to ask everybody what his name -was. - -Q. When the experiments were to begin, did the professor explain the -purpose? That it was for rescuing people from shipwrecks, and that it -was a sea-water experiment? - -A. Yes, of course. - -Q. Did he explain that you would be very thirsty? - -A. Yes, he did first. - -Q. And that thirst was very unpleasant? - -A. Yes. - - * * * * * - -Q. Witness, the thirst dried out the mouth? - -A. Yes. - -Q. How can you explain that these people foamed at the mouth? - -A. They had fits and foamed at the mouth, they had fits of raving -madness. - -Q. I am just asking you how there can be foam on a mouth which is -completely dried out? - -A. I don’t know. - -Q. You don’t know. Then some became mad? - -A. Yes. - -Q. You gypsies stick together, don’t you? - -A. Yes, of course. - -Q. Then you must be able to tell me who became mad? - -A. I don’t remember. - -Q. You must know. If a friend of mine—I was a soldier twice—and if a -friend of mine had gone mad then I would have noticed it. - -A. It was a tall man who was in the first row. He was the first one to -start. He became raving mad and had fits and thrashed around with his -hands and feet. He was a tall slim gypsy. - -Q. You said that you were weighed? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Isn’t it possible that after the experiment, when you received good -food again and plenty of water, you were re-weighed? - -A. No. - -Q. But then they had a chart showing where you were weighed every day? - -A. I don’t know. - -Q. Were you weighed standing up or lying down? - -A. Standing up. - -Q. Were some of the people weighed lying down? - -A. I don’t remember. - -Q. Were the scales ones on which people could be weighed lying down? - -A. I don’t know. - -Q. What did these scales look like? - -A. Well, they were big scales. You had to stand on it. There was an -indicator which showed the weight. - -Q. The man who had his mouth sealed, did he have a tube in his stomach -too? - -A. I don’t remember. - -Q. Your liver was punctured? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Do you have a scar? - -A. A scar? I don’t know. - -Q. Don’t you ever look at your body? - -A. Yes. You want to see it? - -Q. No. I am just asking you if you have a scar? - -A. You mean a little mark? - -Q. Have you a little round scar there? - -A. I did not look as carefully as that. - -Q. Well, do you think you have one or not? - -A. I don’t know. I didn’t bother with these camp matters any more, -otherwise I would go crazy. I don’t want to hear anything more about the -camp. We suffered long enough. - -Q. Witness, do you think you are mad or mentally retarded? - -A. No. I don’t think I am mad. I said, I’d very soon go mad if I thought -about these things at the camp. - -Q. Do you think there is something wrong with you mentally? - -A. No. - -Q. You say you are going crazy? - -A. Well, if I keep thinking of that camp. - -MR. HARDY: I object to this line of questioning, your Honor. - -DR. STEINBAUER: Well, your liver was punctured? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Do you know whether you have a scar, yes or no? - -A. I don’t know. - -Q. What was the nationality of the people in the camp who were -experimental subjects? - -A. Poles and Czechs. - -Q. How many Germans were there? - -A. Seven or eight, who spoke German. - -Q. Were there some Hungarians and Burgenlaender? - -A. No. I don’t know. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK[52] - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. HARDY: Do you have any ability to write shorthand, Doctor? - -DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: Yes, I know shorthand. - -Q. Are these your stenographic notes on the back of Document C-23? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Would you kindly read those to the Tribunal—transcribe them? Would -that be too difficult, or would you like to have me give you my -transcription of them to aid you? - -A. It says: “The thirst acquires forms which are difficult to bear. The -patient is apathetic.” - -Q. Pardon me, Doctor. It might be helpful if you used this -transcription. I have had experts transcribe the notes; and then the -interpreters can follow us more readily. I have the English copies also -for the Tribunal to follow you, and if you have any discrepancy to point -out with transcription as set out in the English— - -JUDGE SEBRING: Are you offering this, Mr. Hardy? - -MR. HARDY: That is a problem, your Honor. I want to have him transcribe -the notes, and when the Tribunal settles who will offer this document -into evidence, either the defense or prosecution, at that time, if -necessary, I will give this a document number. I think we will have to -wait to clarify that point later. - -Q. Would you check that transcription, Professor? - -A. That is correct, except in the first line it says— - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You have read your own stenographic notes, have -you not? - -DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: Yes, and I have compared them with this -transcription. - -Q. What you should now read is your own version of these shorthand notes -as you say they are correctly read. You understand that? You can read -them from that, as you corrected it. You can read them from shorthand -direct or from the typewritten transcription, as you please. Read -slowly, too, please. - -MR. HARDY: While he is reading that, your Honor, I suggest that he stop -at the correction he wishes to make and we can correct our English copy -and the interpreters can correct the German copy. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: He will call attention to the corrections which -you make. - -DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: “The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure.” -The second version reads: “already unendurable”. My notes do not read -like that. - -“The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure. The patient lies there -quite motionless with half-closed eyes. The patient lies apathetically. -He takes little notice of his surroundings. He asks for water only when -he awakes from his somnolent condition. - -“The appearance is very bad and shows signs of a decline. The general -condition gives no cause for alarm. - -“Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent. - -“Respirations 25 per minute. - -“The eyes are deeply hollowed”, it should read “deeply”. Here it says -“often”. - -“The turgor of the skin greatly reduced. - -“Skin dry, tongue completely dry, whitish coating in the middle fairly -free. - -“The mucous membranes of the mouth and the lips dry, latter covered with -crusts. Lungs show slight very dry bronchitis, lower border VI-XI.” It -is supposed to read “XI”. Originally it said “XII” and apparently I -corrected it to read “XI.” - -“Sharpened vesicular”, the word “breathing” is omitted here, of course. - -“Sharpened vesicular breathing”—that is a medical expression. - -“Heart beats very low, barely audible. Pulse weak. Filled. Palpability -of the pulse worse.” Here it says that the pulse is “felt” and it should -be “filled”. The pulse is less full. - -Then this which is described here as undecipherable reads: “The cell -walls are somewhat thickened.” Here I probably said “more strongly -thickened”. - -“Liver 2½-3 fingers below sternal margin, rather soft, moderately -sensitive to pressure.” - -“Spleen soft” is wrong. It says: “Spleen reutoric, enlarged in a ring -form, slightly enlarged.” - -“Musculature hypotonic. Joints can be extended excessively. Calves -slightly sensitive to pressure.” Then what is described here as -illegible reads: “Indication of horizontal welt formation strong welt -vertical formation.” That refers to the reaction of the muscle upon -knocking, the so-called ideo-muscular welt. - -Q. Would you kindly start that paragraph again and read it as it is -written? - -A. It reads here: “Musculature hypotonic. Joints can be extended -excessively. Calves slightly sensitive to pressure. Indication of -horizontal welt formations. Strong vertical welt formations.” Up to this -point, that is how it reads in the text; then in order to explain it, I -added that we were concerned with the so-called ideo-muscular welt. - -Further the text continues: “Reflexes” with two little crosses, that is, -they react strongly. “Abdominal reflexes”, also two little crosses. -“Romberg” as it says here. “Babinski negative”. - -“Left”—here it says “Leif” “phenomenon”. Here on the left, “phenomenon -of Becher”. “Oppenheim negative”. “Rosselimo negative”. “Bulbous reflex -bad”. “Tonus of the bulb of the eye bad”. “Bulbous reflex” with a little -cross—that is positive. - -[Interruption.] - -Q. Now, Professor Beiglboeck, looking over these stenographic notes in -the sentence in the first paragraph, which will be the third sentence, -which states: “He takes little notice of his surroundings”, has an -erasure been made in the stenographic notes in that sentence? - -A. No. I can’t see any. - -Q. In place of the word “little” which appears in the present text on -the back of C-23, was there originally a symbol, stenographic symbol for -the word “no” and then the word “no” was erased and replaced by the word -“little”? - -A. I see here that actually something else had been written there; -probably at the time I wrote over it. I don’t see anything erased. - -Q. Now, in the sentence in the same paragraph, the first paragraph, the -fourth sentence where it states: “He asks for water only when he awakes -from his somnolent condition”, did another word appear in the same place -as the character for “somnolent condition”? Did another word appear in -the same place as the character for “somnolent” now appears, and can you -make out whether or not that other character that has been erased was -the word “semiconscious” and has now been replaced by “somnolent”? I -think the original character can be well recognized to read -“semiconscious”. - -A. What is legible under here says: “Numb”. - -Q. After the sentence that I have just read: “He asks for water—” - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I did not understand the witness’ explanation of -that last double reading of the shorthand. What was your explanation, -Witness? - -DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: The German word “benommen”, numb. - -Q. Numb? Not unconscious? - -A. Numb. - -MR. HARDY: In the first instance, in the sentence: “He takes little -notice of his surroundings”, is an erasure noticeable there, in that the -word “no” has been replaced by the word “little”? - -DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: Something has been written over. - -Q. Will you show that to the Tribunal, please, that character that has -been written over? Would you point that out to them, Doctor? Point out -the character in that sentence: “He takes little notice of his -surroundings”, and point that out, this character here (indicating) on -the second line of characters. - -MR. HARDY: Here it is, your Honor, the last character on the page. - -Q. Now, would you show the Tribunal also where the word “semiconscious” -or “numb” appeared and that has also been written over? That is the last -character on the third line. - -A. Yes, here (indicating). - -Q. Now, after the sentence: “He asks for water only when he awakes from -his somnolent condition,” which is the fourth stenographic line on the -back of chart C-23, we notice that an entire line or half line has been -erased. This half line had previously contained stenographic symbols but -they are now no longer identifiable. Is that correct? - -A. Yes. Something has been erased here. - -MR. HARDY: Your Honors can see the red erasure that has been used to -erase that half line of characters; the impression of the eraser is -still obvious there. - -Q. Now, Professor, in the sentence in the next paragraph of stenographic -notes, the second sentence reads: “The general condition gives no cause -for alarm.” Is that correct? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, throughout your writing of these characters, between each word -you usually leave a space to indicate another word, do you not? That is -very clear throughout your transcription. You have left spaces between -each character signifying words. Is that correct? - -A. No. It varies. Sometimes the words are written closer together, quite -closely, for example here (indicating). - -Q. Well now, here in this sentence where it says, “The general condition -gives no cause for alarm”, the word “no”—that is, this character -here—does not have the spaces between it that all the other characters -on the sheet have, does it? In fact, the symbol for “no” touches the -previous symbol for “general condition”, leaving no spacing. Did you add -the word “no” at a later date in a different pencil? - -A. No. I do that quite frequently. When something is written above the -line in shorthand I raise the adjoining sign as well. - -Q. Now, if you will turn to the sentence in the third paragraph which -reads: “Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent”. The word -“is” appeared instead of “somewhat” originally, did it not, before an -erasure was made? Didn’t it read originally “Respiration is flatter, -moderately frequent”? - -A. It still says so: “somewhat frequent; moderately frequent.” I wrote -that twice. - -Q. Well, now, how does that sentence read? - -A. “Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent; respiration 25 -per minute.” - -Q. Did the word “is”, the character for the word “is”, appear in that -sentence before a change was made? - -A. Which word? - -Q. “Is”—“i-s”. - -A. No. - -Q. Can’t you clearly see in that sentence that the word “is” has been -erased and in its place the word “somewhat” has been written, the -character “somewhat”? - -A. No. - -Q. You can’t see that. Did you look at it through the glass, Doctor? - -A. In shorthand I write the word “is”— - -Q. Now, later in this same sentence, Dr. Beiglboeck, after the word -“flatter”, didn’t the word “hardly” appear originally in place of the -word “moderately”? The word “hardly” was erased and replaced by -“moderately” and then crossed out twice. - -A. Here it said “troublesome”. - -Q. It says, “respiration flatter”. It could say “hardly frequent” before -the changes, couldn’t it? - -A. “Hardly moderately” it says here. That means: “Hardly moderately -frequent”. - -Q. Has the character been changed at all? - -A. I said already originally it read “troublesome”. - -Q. Have any erasures been made in that sentence? - -A. It was written over. - -Q. And then crossed out? - -A. Yes. - -Q. What word was written over? Is that word there that is written over, -that is now legible, the word “moderately” or is that the word “hardly”? - -A. It didn’t read “hardly”. It read: “troublesome”. - -Q. Well, which character said “troublesome”, the one that is legible now -or the one that has been written over? - -A. It is legible; it was “troublesome”. - -Q. Well now, in the sentence which starts out in the eighth paragraph -with the words: “Heartbeats very low, poorly audible,” in that sentence -has a character been erased and another one written over? Has the -character “scarcely” been erased and replaced by “poorly”? I believe the -marks of the original symbol for “scarcely” can still be clearly -distinguished, can they not? - -A. Yes, that is correct. - -Q. Who made these changes, Doctor? Did you make them yourself? - -A. Yes, I did. - -Q. When did you make them? - -A. I am no longer able to tell you exactly when I made them. - -Q. Did you make them at Dachau? - -A. No. - -Q. Did you make them in Nuernberg? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Did you erase these shorthand characters that appear on the fourth -line here in Nuernberg? - -A. Yes, I did that too. - - * * * * * - -Q. Now, Doctor, you have had the opportunity to think over during the -course of last evening your examination yesterday, and you have told -this Tribunal that these stenographic notes were altered by yourself -here in Nuernberg; are you prepared to tell this Tribunal now just why -it became necessary for you to alter these stenographic notes? - -A. I ask permission to be allowed to make the following explanation. I -changed these notes before these sheets were handed in, that is, after -they had been returned from Professor Vollhardt. I only made some -changes in these stenographic notes, and then I told my defense counsel, -whom I had not informed about this—this I want to emphasize—I said to -him we should withdraw the weight chart, because I was immediately sorry -that I had changed something. I originally intended to submit the weight -charts of these persons, because I believe from the changed weights -alone one can see on the whole how this experiment developed. And then, -when I had committed this thoughtless action, my conscience immediately -bothered me, and I told my defense counsel that I should not submit it. -But I want to state that I did not make any changes in the rest of the -report on the course of the experiments; that in the urine amounts, as -well as in the temperatures, and especially in the case of the weights, -they are definitely the original values, as also in the case of the -blood pressure. So in what you see here, on the front pages of the -chart, nothing has been changed since these charts arrived here. - -Q. Could you tell us just what was your reason for changing some of the -stenographic notes? - -A. Because a person who does not know the condition of thirst would -receive a stronger impression of the condition from the description as -it was here than the actual condition really was. - -Q. Do you have anything further to say about those alterations, Doctor? -You may at this time explain to the Tribunal anything else in connection -with those alterations if you wish. - -A. Well, I want to state again that I am very sorry that I did it. As I -said, I only intended to submit the charts to show the weights, and not -because of the other results of the medical examinations, because I am -of the opinion that from the weight charts one can definitely recognize, -first, how much weight the experimental subject lost; secondly, they -reveal unequivocally on which days water was drunk; thirdly, they reveal -clearly that immediately after the conclusion of the experiment there -was a gain in weight in the case of all the experimental subjects; and, -fourthly, one sees that when the persons were discharged in most cases -they had again reached their original weight. - -JUDGE SEBRING: Well, Doctor, how do you explain the fact that names have -been erased from many of these charts? - -DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: This erasing of names must have been done before. -I did not do that here. I did not change anything on the front pages of -these charts. It is possible that this already happened in Dachau. I -can’t tell you that. It is possible that I erased them later on in -Tarvis. I did not erase them here. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE EXPERT WITNESS DR. FRANZ - VOLLHARDT[53] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. MARX: Please, would you briefly tell the Tribunal what your -scientific activities have been and in what special field you have taken -a particularly great interest, and since when? - -WITNESS VOLLHARDT: I am Professor of Internal Medicine at Frankfurt and -predominantly I have dealt with the questions of circulation, -metabolism, blood pressure, and kidney diseases. - -Q. Which are the German universities where you have been a lecturer? - -A. Halle and Frankfurt. - -Q. Are you an author of scientific works regarding this special field of -activity? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Have they been circulated and translated in foreign countries and in -foreign languages? - -A. Yes, they have been translated into Russian, behind my back. - -Q. Considering the facts you have just stated, it would be right to say -that you have had honors allotted to you in this country and abroad; so -would you please tell the Tribunal what types of decoration you have -received abroad? - -A. I really have to? - -Q. Which foreign academies and foreign societies have you been a member -of? Professor, I really want you to answer my questions because my -questions pursue certain purposes. - -A. I am Honorary Doctor of the Sorbonne, Paris, of Goettingen and -Freiburg; and, as far as societies are concerned, there are a lot of -them, Medical Society at Edinburgh, at Geneva, at Luxembourg. I am an -Honorary Member of the University at Santiago, and so on and so forth. - -Q. Thank you very much. Then I would be interested to hear from you -whether you had connections with the NSDAP and what sort of connections -they were and whether the Party persecuted you in any way. Perhaps you -might answer the last question first. - -A. When I was lecturing in Spanish in South America, and when I was -giving a lecture in Cordoba, Argentina, before a medical congress, I -received a telegram to the effect that I had been relieved from my -office and the reason given was lack of anti-Semitic attitude. - -Q. When was that? - -A. 1938. - -Q. And since when have you been reinstated and active again? - -A. Since 1945. - -Q. As a full professor? - -A. Yes, as full professor for internal medicine at the University of -Frankfurt. - -Q. Now, Professor, a few questions regarding your own research work. You -have dealt particularly with hunger and thirst treatment in the case of -kidney diseases. Is that correct? - -A. Yes. - -Q. So that you have personal medical and scientific experience regarding -the observation of human beings when they undergo hunger and thirst -treatment? - -A. Yes. - -DR. MARX: Mr. President, before continuing with the examination of this -expert witness, I should like to permit myself to make a suggestion. -There are two types of possibilities for the examination of Professor -Vollhardt regarding questions which interest us here. One possibility, -the one which I myself consider the correct one, is that Professor -Vollhardt should give us a continuous expert opinion regarding the -entire complex of questions which are of interest here, and that at the -end I would then permit myself to put a few concluding questions to the -expert here as, of course, any defense counsel and prosecutor is -entitled to do, too. The other possibility would be that I put a number -of individual questions to the expert which would deal with the subject -chronologically and technically from a medical point of view. But, that -would distort the context and would not give as clear a picture of the -situation as would the first possibility. I should like therefore, Mr. -President, for you to make a decision whether the expert is to give an -opinion in the form of a lecture first. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: If counsel would propound to the witness a -hypothetical question covering the basic facts which here are at issue, -and if the witness would answer that hypothetical question without -further question from counsel and make his response brief and to the -point, and without enlarging too much upon the fact that salt water is -not fit to drink and is injurious, which the Tribunal very well knows, -we might proceed as suggested by counsel. The hypothetical question -should cover the facts here at issue, that experiments were tried upon a -group of people, a control group, a noncontrol group, and others, then -the witness may answer that question without further interruption by -counsel if his answer is, as I said, brief and not enlarging too much on -generalities. - -DR. MARX: Very well, Mr. President. - -Q. Now, Professor, have you sufficient insight into the planning and -carrying out of the so-called sea-water experiments to give an expert -opinion on that subject? - -WITNESS VOLLHARDT: Yes. - -Q. What documentary evidence did you have? - -A. I had the original records prepared by Beiglboeck. - -Q. I shall first of all deal with the character and type of the -experiments. Are there differences between the character of these -sea-water experiments and experiments with artificial infection with -malaria and cholera and if there are differences, what are they? - -A. You can’t compare the two at all, because in the case of the -sea-water experiments you have things so perfectly under control and can -interrupt so instantaneously, and because the experiments take such a -short time that the danger of injury could be excluded with absolute -certainty. In the case of artificial infection you cannot do that. - -Q. You are saying that in the case of sea-water experiments, providing -they are interrupted in time, danger to health and body can be avoided -with certainty or bordering on certainty. - -A. Not the latter. I said with absolute certainty. - -Q. I shall now come to the planning of these experiments. I suppose you -know of the meeting of 25 May 1944, which was decisive for the planning -of the experiments. Did the presence of Professors Eppinger and Heubner -guarantee the purely scientific and medically proper treatment of the -problem? - -A. Undoubtedly it did. Professor Heubner is a leading scientist and an -extremely critical person, and Professor Eppinger was one of the leading -clinicians in the world and a most outstanding expert, and I assume both -of these gentlemen had reasons for allowing these experiments to be -carried out, presumably in order to strengthen the medical men, -vis-a-vis, the technicians. Secondly, Eppinger’s idea apparently was -that under such stringent experimental conditions, the kidney would -suffer to an unusual degree and that Berkatit, which contains vitamins, -might assist the work of the kidney. - -Q. Professor, what is your opinion about the individual experimental -groups? - -A. I think that scientifically speaking the planning was excellent and I -have no objection to the entire plan. It was good to add a -hunger-and-thirst group because we know by experience that thirst can be -borne less well than hunger, and if people are suffering from hunger and -thirst too, they do not suffer from hunger, but do suffer from thirst; -and that resembles what shipwrecked persons would be subjected to -because they only suffer from thirst. It was excellent that Wofatit was -to be introduced into the experiments too, although it was expected from -the beginning that this wonderful discovery would show its value. It -turned out that groups given sea-water treated according to the Schaefer -method reacted similarly to a group that was subjected to a reasonable -hunger treatment and did not suffer any great discomfort. In the hunger -treatment of 12, or, we should say 8 days, because the people still ate -during the first 4 days, that is a minor affair, and we carry that out -innumerable times for medical reasons. There exists a sanitarium where -people are made to go without food for 4 weeks, and as long as they get -water in the shape of fruit juice, they still carry on well and often -with enthusiasm. Group 2 was Schaefer’s group, groups 3 and 4 were the -groups that received 500 cc. of sea-water, once without and once with -Wofatit. Group 3 was the one which drank 1,000 cc. of sea-water. That -one could only use volunteers for this group is an obvious fact, since -the cooperation of the experimental subject is indispensable; without -his good will such an experimental arrangement is impossible. That -sufficient volunteers could be found for a case was a matter of course, -since a period of 10 days of excellent food before and after the -experiment was before them, and since one could assure them with the -best of confidence that there would not and could not be any danger. - -Q. We will come to that, Professor. You have just started to speak about -food, nourishment. What is your opinion about the food before, during, -and after the actual experiments? - -A. Well, before the experiments it was splendid. During the experiments -it was meager, corresponding to that of shipwrecked persons and -afterwards quite excellent. In my opinion during such brief experiments -nourishment doesn’t play any part. - -MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, might I inquire whether the -witness is now testifying to facts as he has ascertained them from -studying graphs and charts made by Professor Beiglboeck or is he -testifying from hearsay that food was given to these inmates, or what is -the basis of his knowledge that he is eliciting here? - -A. I was giving my testimony based on the records which I have studied. - -MR. HARDY: Thank you. - -A. But I don’t attach any importance to the meager food served during -the experiments because that is an insignificant point which as I have -said we have allotted to others many times. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Witness, when you referred to this examination of -the records, state briefly just what records you examined. - -A. The original records. - - * * * * * - -DR. MARX: Professor, how do you judge the individual examinations -carried out by Professor Beiglboeck? Were they adequate for the solution -of the practical question whether Berkatit was sufficiently useful and -preferable to thirst treatment, and was it sufficient to judge the daily -condition of the experimental subjects so that the right time to -interrupt the experiments could be ascertained? - -Did you get my question? - -A. Yes. I got it. I thought that the arrangement of these experiments -was splendid from the scientific point of view, and Beiglboeck -apparently devoted himself with tremendous industry and great -responsibility to carrying out of these experiments which he had been -ordered to do. - -Q. Would it be right to say that a personality such as Beiglboeck, as a -professor of internal medicine and chief medical officer at a clinic for -many years on the basis of daily examinations and through his personal -consideration and examination of the experimental subject, would be in a -position to recognize any threat to the health of the person before such -a threat could actually become serious? - -A. That was a matter of course. Beiglboeck is an excellent internal -medical man and the great care with which he carried out these -experiments shows that he was fully conscious of his responsibility. -Only, it’s hard to imagine that, during such brief experiments, serious -damage could have occurred at all. - - * * * * * - -Q. Professor, a little earlier you briefly dealt with the question of -starving, of hunger or of thirst for the purpose of treatment, and I now -want to ask you whether the administration of hunger and thirst cures of -several days is a medically recognized fact, and also how long would you -consider that hunger and thirst with complete refusal of food and liquid -could take place without putting someone’s health in jeopardy? - -A. It depends who it is. Initially, I recommended hunger and thirst -treatment in the case of acute inflammation of the kidneys, but there -people have a great deal of water in their system and the water is -absorbed during such a cure. Astonishing as it may seem, a cure is -effected very rapidly. In such cases, three, five, seven, and even more -days of hunger are employed. In other cases, where no water surplus is -in existence, we would only apply 6 days of hunger treatment. During the -time when I had to be interested in these particular experiments, there -were four women in my clinic, all of whom were there because of high -blood pressure. They were aged 50, 51, 53, and 63 years. One had a blood -pressure of 210/100, and 6 days later it had been reduced to 170/100. -The third had a blood pressure of 280/160 and 6 days later it dropped to -180/100. The loss of weight amounted to 3 or 4 kilograms and the -patients naturally, during those days, suffered from thirst and felt -weak at the end of the sixth day, but they were so happy about the -improved condition that they considered the unpleasantness of the recent -days as being worth forgetting. - -Q. Is it correct that when water is withdrawn, nourishment should also -be withdrawn? - -A. It’s easier to suffer thirst when you are also hungry because the -supply of nourishment makes claims upon the kidneys and, if you exclude -salt in the nourishment, the water loses further humidity. Thus, -appetite disappears when you are thirsty. Therefore, it is definitely -better to be hungry and thirsty simultaneously. - -Q. Professor, is it right to observe the individual doses in order to -prevent diarrhea, and, if individual quantities of less than 300 cc. are -admitted, can you prevent diarrhea? - -A. In the case of sea and bitter water you only suffer from diarrhea if -you drink a large quantity at once. If you distribute it over a day you -suffer from constipation. - -Q. Yes, but you didn’t quite answer my question. I inquired about the -individual doses. - -A. Yes, well, I’m trying to say that if you spread it out over a day, -giving smaller individual doses instead of giving it all at once, then -there isn’t any danger of diarrhea. - -Q. Can you describe sea-water as poisonous at all? - -A. Absolutely not. There is a trend towards treatment with sea-water -which is increasing, and people drink half a liter of sea-water every -day for weeks. There can’t be any question of any poisonous quality. In -fact, people say they feel splendid. The only difference is that in the -case of such cures fresh water is administered, too, in the manner of -tea, coffee, and soup, so that the dehydrating effect of the sea-water -is counteracted. - -Q. Professor, I wonder if you would speak a little more slowly and make -a pause after individual answers in order to enable the interpreters to -follow. - -Has there been an experiment during which a dose of 500 to 1,000 cc. of -sea-water daily was taken and is it to be described as dangerous, -providing the experiment is discontinued as soon as there is a threat of -danger to health? - -A. There can’t be any question of there being any danger to health -during the first few days. The only question is, how long can the body -stand up to this continued deprivation of humidity? Sea-water has a -three-percent salt water content. Generally speaking, at least so far, -we have assumed that the kidneys cannot deal with such a salt -concentration. This means that salt will remain in the system, -collecting water from the tissues. In the beginning, this is of no -importance, but after 6 or 7 or 8 days, this becomes unpleasant and it -is to be expected that after the twelfth day there is some danger. There -have been cases of sea rescue when even 17 or more days afterwards -recovery was achieved, but I would say that I would never dare to -continue such an experiment beyond the twelfth day, and in this case -with which we are concerned, all experiments were discontinued after the -sixth day, so that danger to health during that period was out of the -question. - -Q. Could the aim of these experiments have been achieved with a -semipermeable membrane? - -A. I don’t understand how one can imagine this. What we are concerned -with is the question of how long the human body can survive without -water and under the excess quantity of salt. Now, that is subject to the -water content of the body and it depends first of all, upon whether -water is only used by the intermediary tissues or whether the cell -liquid too is being used up. In the latter case, there is a danger which -becomes apparent through excess potassium quantities, and this was also -continuously observed and checked during such experiments, and there -were no excess potassium quantities such as can be expected after 6 -days. - -Q. Nor would it be right to say that these experiments were not planned -scientifically and medically, is that correct? - -A. Absolutely not. - -Q. Could they have been planned differently? - -A. I couldn’t imagine how. - -Q. Were these experiments in the interests of active warfare, or in the -interests of the care of shipwrecked sailors or soldiers? - -A. The latter. - -Q. In other words, for aviators and sailors who were shipwrecked or -might be shipwrecked? - -A. Towards the end of the war there was an increase in the number of -pilots shot down as well as of shipwrecked personnel, and it was, -therefore, the duty of the hygiene department concerned to consider the -question of how one could best deal with such cases of shipwrecked -personnel; that was the reason for this conference. Previously Schaefer, -as we heard yesterday, had recommended that no liquid should be taken. -When, together with I. G. Farben, he succeeded in eliminating salt and -bitter salt from sea-water through Wofatit, the problem was really -solved scientifically. There were, however, considerable technical -difficulties, and it isn’t exactly simple to equip each flier with so -much Wofatit in addition to everything else he has to carry in order to -protect him against the danger of shipwreck. That is no doubt why -Eppinger and Heubner were in favor of the experiment, and it was -unfortunate that Mr. Berka appeared with Berkatit at the same time, and -impressed the technicians because his method was more simple and -cheaper. - -Q. Professor, was there any reason to expect symptoms of injury which -might appear later than 10 days after the end of the experiment? - -A. It was entirely out of the question, even after the seventh day. -Later injury is out of the question, because the duration of the -experiments is too short. - -Q. To what do you attribute the loss of weight during such experiments? - -A. That is almost entirely the loss of water. As I have already told -you, the excess salt supply in the body deprived the body of water. The -body must have a supply of water if it is to supply salt. In other -words, if the body is not receiving any other water than sea-water, an -attack on the water held by the body must take place, and therefore loss -of weight is bound to occur which, however, can be made up very quickly. - -Q. What would you say was to be expected in the way of the loss of -substance of the body and how much loss of water? - -A. I would say the bulk is the loss of water, but to split this up is -something I consider impossible to do with certainty. You might possibly -compare just how much was lost during the time applied by Schaefer when -there was considerable hunger and how much was lost in the case of -Berka. - -Q. Does the speed with which the loss of water takes place play an -important part? - -A. Yes, of course, a tremendous part. The colored nostras is a -well-known example, during which disease the most tremendous loss of -water and salt takes place during 24 hours. I knew a case where 10 -liters of water and 150 grams of salt had to be added intravenously -through the veins, the skin, and through the stomach in order to save -the life of a person suffering from such an acute loss of water. If, on -the other hand, this is spread out over a period of days and if you do -not have to expect such a dangerous loss of salt, then the body can -stand up to it for a much longer period. I might perhaps add that the -loss of salt is just as dangerous as excess quantities of salt, and also -in the event of the loss of salt which is always connected with loss of -water, considerable losses of weight are suffered. It is well known that -an expedition on the mountain Monte Rose lost 5 kilograms of salt and -water in weight, and that the weight could not be replaced in spite of -the addition of water when salt was also added. - -Q. Professor, according to the documents at your disposal were these -experiments sufficiently well prepared? - -A. It was my impression that they were extremely well prepared, and I -was particularly impressed by the fact that Beiglboeck had sufficiently -examined the participants carefully and had considered the use of three -of them to be unsuitable since he found a defect of the lungs. - -Q. I also want to deal with such preparations— - -MR. MCHANEY: I do not think by any stretch of the imagination this -witness can testify from the records that Beiglboeck conducted an -examination or rejected three experimental subjects. In my opinion it -does not appear from the records, and he can only testify what -Beiglboeck told him. Unless he can say it does appear in the records, I -think it should be stricken. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel has an opportunity of cross-examining the -witness at the close of his testimony. - -DR. MARX: Professor, would you not say that regulations for these -experiments also mean that certain experiments, such as experiments on -one’s self and animal experiments, printed regulations, if you like, -must have been in existence or was that true of this case? - -A. Yes, a report from Beiglboeck about an experiment carried out upon -himself is in existence which describes most efficiently the condition -in which he found himself during a sea-water experiment, and this -description tallies to the highest possible degree with what my -volunteers who submitted themselves to these experiments described. I -might deal with that later. - -Q. What opinion do you have regarding the experiments which were carried -out by Sirany in Vienna? - -A. There appeared to me to be a lack of critical attitude. I think -Schaefer had the same impression yesterday. - -Q. Are symptoms recognizable regarding the planning of these experiments -which would go beyond the absolutely essential practical purposes and -which would lead to considerable pains or painful feelings or might have -led to that? - -A. Of course it isn’t fun to be thirsty, and that is the major complaint -in these cases. These people are increasingly thirsty, and they are -disappointed to find that drinking sea-water doesn’t decrease but -increases their thirst, and towards the end of the experiments there are -disturbances of the muscles, and the temper doesn’t exactly improve. It -is the same in the salt water experiments where there are cramps of the -calf because of the lack of water, but the characteristics of that are -that these symptoms disappear instantaneously at the very moment when -the first glass of water is drunk. - -Q. Would you consider it possible that disturbances of the nerve end -might appear? Temperature? - -A. Temperature doesn’t happen at all, and I can’t imagine there being -disturbances of the nervous system at all. - -Q. How about fits? - -A. In the case of insane people there may appear insane fits, maybe, but -not in the case of normal human beings. - -Q. If you yourself had been placed in this position, and considering -your attitude toward medical ethics, would you have objected to carrying -out the same type of experiment as was carried out here, if healthy, -strong, young men had been at your disposal? - -A. I actually did it. Since I was interested in connection with -sea-water experiments, I called for volunteers among my young doctors, -and five of them volunteered, among them my youngest son, and they drank -synthetic sea-water, having the exact salt content of real sea-water, -drinking up to 500 cc.; they got a little food, because they were to -continue on duty during the experiment. The loss of weight varied and -was around one kilogram a day. At the end of the experiment, my son was -pretty thin, but after having a cup of tea was fine. Two days later he -had regained his lost weight fully. All five participants described the -experiment in the same way as Beiglboeck described the experiment -carried out on himself. Four of these subjects interrupted the -experiment after 5 days. One carried it out for 6 days, and apart from -continuous thirst, he had no complaints. Any serious disturbance or -damage is out of the question, and the extraordinary fact was the speed -with which all symptoms of thirst disappeared after water had been -taken. - -Q. Now, Professor, the experiments we were talking about; did they have -a practical valuable aim and did they show a corresponding result? - -A. Yes, that is correct. For instance an important observation was made -which Eppinger had expected; he wanted to see if the kidneys did -concentrate salt under such extreme conditions to an even higher extent -than one expected previously. One thought that it would be something -like 2.0 percent but 2.6 or 2.7 percent and record figures of 3.0, 3.5, -3.6, and 4 percent are shown, so that the fortunate man who is in a -position to concentrate 3.6 percent or 4 percent of salt would be able -to live on sea-water for quite a long period. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Witness, after a question is propounded to you by -your counsel, would you pause a moment before giving your answer so that -the question may be translated and conveyed and when you begin to make -your answer, would you speak a little more slowly? - -A. Finally, one unsuspected fact was shown which may be connected with -this, and that is that the drinking of small quantities of sea-water up -to 500 cc. given over a lengthy period turned out to be better than -unalleviated thirst. - -DR. MARX: What do you think of Wofatit generally? - -A. It is a wonderful thing. - -Q. Is it correct to say that sea-water really assumes the character of -drinking water through it? - -A. Yes, the only difficulty would appear to be to obtain the drug in -sufficiently large quantities for a man who is shipwrecked and did not -have his luggage; but it is a wonderful discovery. - -Q. So, you think that the result of these experiments is not only of -importance in wartime, but is also of importance for the problems of -seafaring nations? - -A. Quite right, it is a wonderful thing for all sea-faring nations. - -Q. So that both the experiments with Wofatit, as well as the experiments -made regarding the symptoms when such a drink was not available, were -important to show, for instance, the result of the consumption of -sea-water in certain given doses. - -A. That is quite correct. - -Q. That was only discovered by these experiments? - -A. Quite correct. - - * * * * * - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. HARDY: On what precisely is your testimony with respect to the -experiments by Beiglboeck based? - -WITNESS VOLLHARDT: On the records and the descriptions that Beiglboeck -gave of the experiments. - -Q. Precisely what records have you seen of these experiments? - -A. The records that the defense counsel had in his hand yesterday or -today. - -Q. Doctor, I will have passed up to you a set of records which are -numbered from 1 to 44 in red pencil, and I ask you, did you have those -records before you and did you make a study of them? - -A. Yes, I had these records, and I asked one of my collaborators who -took part in these experiments to read through these records and to make -excerpts from them. He happens to be here also. - -Q. Who was this collaborator? - -A. One of my assistants by the name of Werner. He is in the audience at -the moment. - -Q. You said something about his having participated in experiments; you -don’t mean the Dachau experiments, do you? - -A. No. In experiments that I carried out with my students. - -Q. Did you personally examine these records at all? - -A. I saw them, but I didn’t study every one of them. I left that up to -the young man. - -Q. And what did the young man do? - -A. He gave me a very exhaustive report on them. - - * * * * * - -Q. Your testimony, then, is based upon a summary made by your assistant, -is that correct? - -A. Yes. That is so. - -Q. Now what other records were made available to you upon which your -testimony is based here? - -A. The charts that were filled out in pencil with figures. - - * * * * * - -Q. Now, were there any other records that you got which we have not -heard about, on which your testimony here is based? - -A. I cannot say at the moment. I would have to confer with— - -Q. I believe that the defense had reports by Becker-Freyseng and by -Beiglboeck? - -A. These were reports on the whole development of the question. - -Q. Well, Professor, what sort of reports were they? We have not seen -them, you know, and we would like to know on what you are basing your -opinion before this Tribunal. - -A. Descriptions of the whole course that the matter took regarding the -conference, how the decision was reached, how the experiments were -planned, and then Beiglboeck’s report on his own experiments on himself, -which is a very careful description and corresponds exactly to what my -subjects experienced when they carried out experiments on themselves. - -Q. Did you read and study these experiments carried out by -Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck? - -A. Of course. - -Q. And they influenced your testimony before this Tribunal; you relied -on them in making your testimony here? - -A. From these I had an idea of the situation as a whole; in order to -form my own opinion I performed experiments myself. - -Q. And your testimony here is based in part upon the reports made by -Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck; that is true, isn’t it, Doctor? - -A. Yes. - -Q. And these records made by Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck were not -contemporaneous records of these experiments, were they, Professor? - -A. I don’t believe so. - -Q. They were, rather, essays or reports which they have written up since -their arrest and incarceration; isn’t that true, Professor? - -A. That is very possible. - -Q. How old a man is this assistant of yours, Professor? - -A. Twenty-six. - -Q. Twenty-six years old? - -A. Twenty-seven. - -Q. Twenty-seven years old; has he studied medicine? - -A. Of course. - -Q. Where did he study? - -A. Heidelberg. - -Q. Herr Professor, I will ask you to testify from your own memory, and -if the defense counsel wishes to put your assistant on the stand, they -are privileged to do so; but I am interested primarily in knowing what -you know about your assistant. Now, you did not know he studied at -Heidelberg until he told you just now? - -A. I have 40 to 50 young men at the clinic, and it is impossible for me -to know of each one where he studied, but I made his acquaintance at the -clinic. He is a very industrious and intelligent person and for that -reason I asked him to do this work and take some work off my shoulders. - -Q. How long has he been working with you? - -A. More than a year. - -Q. Working with you about a year, and since that time you have conducted -these sea-water experiments yourself? - -A. We carried them out shortly before Shrove Tuesday. - -Q. Of 1947? - -A. Yes, this year. - -Q. How did you happen to carry out these experiments; were you requested -to do so by defense counsel? - -A. No. I had been asked very often to interest myself in this matter, -and I was interested to see for myself the effect of sea-water on the -experimental subjects. This was interesting to me because I already had -considerable experience in the field of hunger and thirst. - -Q. Were you approached at all with respect to this case before the time -you started these sea-water experiments? - -A. Yes, that is why I started to interest myself in the matter, because -I was asked to appear here as a witness, but I carried out these -experiments entirely spontaneously, without outside interference and for -my own interest. - -Q. But the fact that you were approached to come here and testify -influenced your decision to carry out these experiments, is that right? - -A. Of course, of course. - -Q. And did you make any effort to have these experiments coincide with -the conditions which you were told existed in the Dachau experiments? - -A. Yes, we made only one distinction in this, namely, that the -experimental subjects received roughly 1,600 calories a day, because -they were not to interrupt their work. To be sure, as the experiment -went on they ate less and less of the 1,600 calories, because thirst -made them lose their appetite. - - * * * * * - -Q. Now how many experimental subjects did you use in your experiments? - -A. Five of them. - -Q. And you say that they were volunteers, your assistants, is that -right? - -A. Yes, they were all doctors, volunteers, and, as I said, also included -my youngest son who also happens to be here. - -Q. And precisely what happened during these experiments? - -A. These persons were assembled in one room, received the same amount of -salt each and more or less continued their work. They drank 500 cc. of -sea-water, and one of them drank 1,000, and they stuck pretty closely to -the provisions set down for the experiment. - -Q. You say four of them drank 500 cc. of sea-water per day and the fifth -one drank 1,000 cubic centimeters of sea-water? - -A. The fifth drank on one day, on the last day I think, an additional -500 cc. because he was very thirsty. - -Q. When did you start the experiments? - -A. On the Monday before the beginning of Lent. - -Q. And how long did they run? - -A. As I said, four broke off the experiment after four days because of -the carnival season and one of them stuck it out for six. - -Q. Well, you spoke of four days, do you know how many hours they were -under the experiments? - -A. Five times twenty-four in general and the other one six times -twenty-four. - -Q. Well, I misunderstood you, or else your testimony has changed; you -said four of the students stayed on the experiments for four days and -one went on for six days. Is that right? - -A. No, four did it for five days, four broke off at the end of the fifth -day, and one stayed until the end of the sixth day. - -Q. And you are prepared to testify it was five times twenty-four, is -that right, 60 hours [sic]? - -A. I would have to check on that for sure in the record, whether it was -five times twenty-four or four times twenty-four, or sixteen or -eighteen. Those things didn’t seem very important to me. I was -interested primarily in seeing how greatly the persons suffered under -the experiments, but the man who did it for six days did do it for six -times twenty-four hours. However, I don’t want to make a statement for -certain under oath regarding the number of hours. - -Q. Well this little experiment conducted by you, as I take it, had as -its purpose to find out how much a man suffers, is that right? - -A. Yes. - -Q. You didn’t know that before you conducted this experiment, is that -right? - -A. I assumed that they would be very thirsty, but I wanted to see what -the subjective sensations or feelings of the experimental subjects were. -What was most important to me was to know whether these experiments -could be characterized as cruel or inhumane or brutal, and if they were -experiments which led to a pretty strong sense of discomfort, namely, -thirst, but did not do any damage to health, that is what I wanted to -know. - -Q. And your testimony before this Tribunal is based upon those -experiments; is that right? - -A. No, on both, of course, both on those carried out by Beiglboeck and -on my own. - -Q. Well, your judgment was also influenced by what Beiglboeck told you -about how much the experimental subjects suffered, is that right? - -A. Beiglboeck drew up his own report on his own experiment on himself -and a general report on whatever complaints the subjects uttered. - -Q. What is the experiment that Beiglboeck conducted by himself? You mean -he has been undergoing an experiment back in the prison? - -A. No, before the experiments began, he carried out a sea-water -experiment on himself. - -Q. Where did these experimental subjects of yours stay during this -experiment? I seem to recall you said they continued their work or -something of that sort. - -A. They all stayed in one room where they ate and slept, and this was -done to make the conduct of the experiment easier, as they were to -receive special rations. - -Q. Well, now all five experimental subjects were in one room during the -whole course of the experiment, is that right? - -A. Yes. - -Q. And what did they do? - -A. They went from this room to wherever they had to work, but they -returned to the room for sleeping and eating. - -Q. Well, Doctor, we are having great difficulty in really getting a -clear picture about how this experiment went on. Now you mean to say -they carried on their work about the clinic? They didn’t stay in this -room the whole time, is that right? - -A. Yes. - -Q. They actually only ate in the room and slept in the room; is that -right? - -A. That is correct. - -Q. Did they leave the clinic at all? - -A. I believe that they did not during those days. - -Q. But you don’t know? - -A. I can’t swear to it. - -Q. You can’t swear that they didn’t go to a local cinema during the -course of the experiments for example? - -A. No, I can’t swear to that. I just don’t know. - -Q. In other words, they had their normal daily life available to them -during these experiments? - -A. They carried on their daily work and in this case it is perfectly -certain that they did not drink any fresh water. They knew perfectly -well what the point of the experiment was. - -Q. How much food did they get, again? - -A. 1,600 calories. - -Q. And do you know what the food was? - -A. Yes, that is also in the record. It was meat, fat, and what not, but -I can’t tell you that from memory. However, I could give you the record -in writing. - -Q. In what record? Have we any record on these experiments? - -A. Yes. There was a record. - -Q. Now, they got absolutely no fresh water during the course of the -experiments, is that right? - -A. No. - -Q. Did they get any other water or fluid other than salt water? - -A. No, that was the whole purpose, that they should receive no other -fluid and that is why they lost their appetite later. - -Q. They got no milk and no fruit juices? - -A. No, no, that would have violated the whole experiment, and then they -would not have lost so much weight. - -Q. I can appreciate that, Professor. Where did you get the sea-water -that these experimental subjects drank? - -A. We manufactured it carefully in the chemical laboratory according to -a chemical analysis of sea-water that can be found in many text books. I -have a chemist who was in charge of the laboratory and he made this -sea-water according to the formula. We couldn’t get any natural -sea-water for this experiment. - - * * * * * - -Q. Now, you didn’t keep any of your experimental subjects without any -water whatever, did you? - -A. Five hundred cc. of sea-water was the liquid they received. - -Q. Well, were there not some experimental subjects at Dachau who did not -get any water at all, sea-water or otherwise? - -A. Yes, the first group fasted and thirsted. I have already spoken about -that and said that thirst can more easily be tolerated if one is fasting -at the same time, so that the kidney has as little as possible to do; -thus the body is able to retain more water. - -Q. But you can’t testify to the Tribunal about what pain and suffering -those experimental subjects were subjected to, can you? You didn’t run -any similar experiments yourself? - -A. I do not understand you. I carried out these experiments to know what -sort of suffering the experimental subjects went through. - -Q. But you didn’t carry out one where a man fasted for 5 or 6 days -without either food or water. They did carry out such an experiment in -Dachau. So you have no basis to testify about pain and suffering to -which that group of experimental subjects were subjected, do you? - -A. I mentioned that at the same time I was having four women fast and -thirst who had come to the clinic with very high blood pressure and for -six whole days these women fasted and thirsted. This so improved their -condition that they consequently forgot the unpleasantness involved in -the fasting and thirsting. I also mentioned among them one woman who -weighed only 51.7 kilo, and who lost 3. However, her blood pressure went -down from 245/125 to 185/100. I carried out such experiments almost -daily in the clinic. That is done by the hundred. And, in the case of -persons with kidney disease, that is the accepted method so that during -the war people from the fronts went through thousands of such hunger and -thirst cures. I didn’t have to have any control experiment in this; that -was furnished daily by the clinic. - -Q. And these women went without food and water for 4 days? - -A. Six days without food and water. - -Q. And what was the result on them aside from their blood pressure? Did -they suffer much pain? - -A. There is no question of pain in such cases. They simply felt thirst. -Strangely enough they do not complain of being hungry. The body water -that still remains is enough to keep the body metabolism supplied with -the necessary chemicals. However, there is a lack of sodium nitrate in -the body which, however, can be overcome by giving sodium nitrate. They -never complain about hunger, only thirst. Sometimes they complain of a -feeling of weakness but fasting for 6 days is nothing very special. As I -said, some people carry out hunger cures for 4 weeks. To be sure, they -drink fruit juice during such a long cure. We also make use of it for -therapeutic purposes. They will receive fruit juice but that is by no -means so unpleasant as an 8-day long hunger and thirst cure. - -Q. And you gave them no compensation for going without food and water -whatever? You gave them no injections of any sort? - -A. No, no. My whole purpose is to eliminate from the body all the -unnecessary fluids in the blood so that the blood pressure will drop. I -gradually bring these people over to a form of nourishment without any -salt. - -Q. Now you say that four out of five of your experimental subjects broke -off on the fifth day? - -A. Yes. For external reasons only, not because they could no longer -tolerate it. It just happened that four of the men had dates on the 5th -day, but the 5th one stayed on until the sixth day and I asked him -specifically whether he felt particularly tortured or in pain and he -said no. He said that with the first drink of water he took all -unpleasantness and discomfort vanished. I observed my son myself. As -soon as he drank a cup of tea, he was perfectly all right and 2 days -after the experiment he had recovered all the weight he had lost. He had -lost roughly one kilo a day. - -Q. You say these four men had a date on the 5th. You mean they had an -engagement with a young lady? - -A. I do not know what details were planned for the carnival celebration. -I could simply draw the regrettable conclusion that their interest in -the carnival was a little greater than their interest in the experiment. -But this does indicate that the experiments did not have a very -deleterious effect on them, otherwise they could not have gone to the -carnival and enjoyed it. - -Q. Well, it might also indicate that they didn’t regard the experiments -as being very serious and that, even though several men in this dock are -quite interested in the results of this particular experiment, your four -young assistants didn’t regard it as serious enough to refrain from -going out on a date. Isn’t that about the size of it? - -A. I can’t deny that. I wasn’t too pleased by their behavior. - -Q. Were these men informed of the seriousness of this undertaking? - -A. No. - -Q. And what reason did you advance to them for undergoing the -experiments? - -A. Of course, I told them, and they knew, that such sea-water -experiments were an issue, but I was perfectly convinced that these -experiments could by no means be called inhumane or brutal and -consequently we didn’t approach the experiments in too tragic a manner. -All we wanted to know was how unpleasant such an experiment was. - - * * * * * - -_EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL_ - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Professor, these subjects upon whom you conducted -an experiment in your institute were very excellent subjects for such an -experiment, were they not? - -WITNESS VOLLHARDT: They were characterized by the fact that they were -medical men who understood the meaning of the experiment and that I -could rely on them. Physically, they certainly were no -better-conditioned, according to the photographs at least, than those -rather well nourished experimental subjects. - -Q. I was not thinking so much of their physical condition, but they were -men who were interested in this work, were they not? - -A. Yes. - -Q. The results of the experiment—each upon himself and upon each of his -associates—would be interesting to each one, would it not? Is that not -true? - -A. I would assume so, yes. - -Q. Each one was entirely controlling his own participation in the -experiment, was he not? - -A. Yes. - -Q. If, at any time, any one of the subjects felt that the conditions -which he was undergoing in the experiment were becoming too heavy for -him, he would have been released from further participation upon his -request, would he not? - -A. No doubt he would have reported and he would have said, “I want to -step out. This is too much for me.” - -Q. That’s what I meant. He would have asked to be released and he would -have been immediately released? Well, is it or is it not a fact that a -human being will voluntarily undergo hunger, thirst, pain, discomfort, -and stand it better when he knows that he is doing it under his own -volition with a scientific objective, than a person of equal physical -condition will stand such an experiment when, insofar as he is -concerned, he has no personal interest whatsoever? - -A. No doubt that is correct, and I am perfectly convinced that Professor -Eppinger tried everything he could in order to obtain such volunteers. -He was most uncomfortable about the fact that these experiments were -carried out in Dachau. He would much rather have seen them carried out -in Vienna on his own students but, at that time, there weren’t any -students any more. They had all been called up, and medical officers -were very scarce so that there was no question of obtaining volunteers. -Hence, in this very tense and difficult time, no subjects could be -found, to carry out such a series of experiments as was planned here, in -a hospital or clinic of any kind. It would have been better, more -practical and more sensible, by all means, if the experiments had been -carried out at that time upon medical students, but, unfortunately, that -was impossible. - -Q. You prefaced your statement, Doctor, by saying that Dr. Eppinger had -this sentiment. How do you know that? - -A. Because, during the conference, it was mostly Professor Eppinger who -was in favor of these experiments being made and, since Professor -Eppinger had earmarked his favorite pupil, Beiglboeck, for the carrying -out of these experiments, it is a matter of course that Eppinger would -have liked nothing better than that these experiments should be carried -out under his own control in Vienna. - -Q. You are assuming that Eppinger would have felt as you would have felt -under similar circumstances, is that correct? - -A. I know that all those who were interested in these experiments were -making efforts to find places where these experiments could be carried -out in a military hospital on soldiers or convalescent patients or other -persons, but, unfortunately, everything turned out to be impossible. You -can only imagine the situation if you know how every hospital bed and -every doctor was being utilized in this time. That was the final period -of the war. - -Q. You prefaced this last statement by saying, “I know.” Now, how do you -know? By any other method than assuming that these gentlemen would have -felt as you felt? - -A. No. I recollect that I read that in one of the reports, that an -attempt had been made to carry out the experiments elsewhere and that -one had come across locked doors everywhere. For instance, one had -Brunswick in mind, I know that by chance, the Luftwaffe hospital at -Brunswick, and that was impossible. Thus, all inquiries had negative -answers. - -Q. I gathered from your answer to one of my questions a short time -ago—I would like to return to that subject—that a person of -intelligence will endure more discomfort, pain, and suffering, pursuing -a voluntary experiment which he knows he can terminate at any moment -than a person, probably of less intelligence, would display upon -undergoing an experiment which he could not stop at his own volition. Is -that correct? - -A. Well, there is no question but that, for those persons in Dachau, the -only bait was the good food before and afterwards and the cigarettes -that they had been promised. That was not possible in the case of my -doctors. They did it because they were interested and, of course, that -would have been by far the best solution if it had been possible. - -Q. And, insofar as the subjects at Dachau, if any of them, at any time -during the course of the experiments, believed that the pain or -discomfort or whatever it might be called, which they were suffering -would not be compensated by cigarettes, or other promises which had been -made to them, they would be very anxious then to be released from -prosecution of that experiment. Is that true? - -A. Certainly. That’s why quite a number of experimental subjects -secretly drank water, because the strict course didn’t please them too -much. - -Q. Well, unlike the experimental subjects in your institute, those -subjects would not be particularly interested in the result, would they? -They had no scientific interest in the result, did they? - -A. No, no. None at all. None whatever. - - * * * * * - ------ - -[47] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 1947, -pp. 10942-10971. - -[48] Eugen Kogon: Der SS Staat; published 1946, Verlag der Frankfurter -Hefte, Frankfurt-Main. - -[49] Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck quoted the testimony of the -prosecution witnesses Stoehr, Pillwein, and Tschofenig and the testimony -of the defense witness Mettbach who stated that approximately 40 to 50 -_gypsies_ were used for the sea-water experiments and that they wore -either black or green triangles. Black triangles had to be worn by those -concentration camp inmates who were considered asocial and green -triangles by those who were considered criminal. - -[50] Same as Footnote 49 above. - -[51] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 27 June, -1 July 1947, pp. 10229-10235, 10508-10545. - -[52] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 9, -10, 11, 12, 17 June 1947, pp. 8666-9028, 9326-9329. - -[53] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3 June -1947, pp. 8400-8493. - - 8. EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt, -Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose, and Becker-Freyseng -were charged with special responsibility for and participation in -criminal conduct involving epidemic jaundice experiments (par. 6 (H) of -the indictment). During the trial the prosecution withdrew this charge -in the case of Sievers, Rose, and Becker-Freyseng. On this charge only -the defendant Karl Brandt was convicted, and the defendants Handloser, -Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick -were acquitted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the epidemic jaundice -experiments is contained in its final briefs against defendants -Handloser and Schroeder. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below -on pages 494 to 498. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the -defense on these experiments has been selected from the final plea for -the defendant Handloser. It appears below on pages 499 to 503. This -argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 503 -to 508. - - b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT HANDLOSER_ - - * * * * * - - _Epidemic Jaundice_ - -Following the attack on Russia, epidemic jaundice (hepatitis epidemica) -became a disease of major proportions for the German Wehrmacht. (_Tr. p. -2707._) In some units, casualties up to 60 percent were reported from -this disease. (_NO-010, Pros. Ex. 187._) Accordingly, an intensive -effort was made to discover the causes of and vaccinations against -epidemic jaundice. Dohmen and Gutzeit of the Army Medical Inspectorate -and Haagen of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe were among the -doctors working on this subject. - -Dohmen and Gutzeit were attached to the Military Medical Academy and -directly subordinated to Schreiber. (_Tr. p. 2752._) The Military -Medical Academy was, of course, subordinated to Handloser as Army -Medical Inspector. (_Tr. p. 2740._) Gutzeit was also consulting -internist to Handloser. (_Tr. p. 2700._) Dohmen was one of the first to -isolate a virus which was claimed to be the cause of jaundice. This was -accomplished by inoculating animals with germs taken from human beings -suffering from the disease. (_Tr. p. 2695._) However, considerable -divergence of opinion still existed as to whether jaundice was caused by -bacteria or a virus. (_Tr. p. 3045._) On 1 June 1943, Grawitz, Reich -Physician of the SS, requested Himmler to make concentration camp -inmates available for infection by Dohmen with his virus. He stated that -cases of death among the experimental subjects were to be anticipated. -(_NO-010, Pros. Ex. 187._) It was not stated whether the deaths were to -be brought about for the purpose of performing autopsies (as in the -cases of the high-altitude experiments), or whether they were to be -expected from the disease itself (as in the cases of the typhus -experiments). - -Himmler consented to the use of eight Polish Jews, who had been -condemned to death in the Auschwitz concentration camp, and to Dohmen’s -conducting the experiments. (_NO-011, Pros. Ex. 188._) The experiments -were carried out by Dohmen in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, and -according to the affidavit of the defendant Rudolf Brandt, some of the -experimental subjects died as a result. (_NO-371, Pros. Ex. 186._) Even -the defense witness Gutzeit, who collaborated closely with Dohmen, -admits that Dohmen worked in Sachsenhausen, but stated that this was -merely a ruse to avoid turning over the jaundice virus to Grawitz, and -in reality no infection experiments were performed. (_Tr. p. 2722._) -Gutzeit did not explain, however, why Dohmen, who was in no way -subordinated to Grawitz, should have engaged in such ridiculous -scientific “horseplay.” (_Tr. p. 2758._) - -In weighing the credibility of the testimony of Gutzeit, consideration -should be given to the fact that he was a member of the SS himself and -that he was closely associated with Dohmen in his work. (_Tr. p. 2760._) - -In June 1944, a conference of experts was called by Handloser for the -purpose of coordinating jaundice research. This conference took place at -Breslau and was presided over by Schreiber. (_Tr. p. 7252._) Handloser, -Gutzeit, and Haagen, a consulting hygienist of the Air Fleet, were all -present at this conference. (_Tr. p. 2717._) Schreiber assigned groups -of physicians to work together on jaundice problems. Dohmen, Gutzeit, -and Haagen were assigned to one of these groups. (_Tr. p. 2717._) On 12 -June 1944, Haagen himself requested Schreiber to assign Dohmen to work -with him. Generalarzt Schreiber at that time was commander of the -Military Medical Academy. (_NO-299, Pros. Ex. 190._) Schreiber complied -with this request. (_NO-300, Pros. Ex. 191._) - -On 24 June 1944, Gutzeit wrote to Haagen that he was also requesting -Schreiber to assign Dohmen to Haagen. He went on to state that he was -making preparations for experiments on human beings and he wanted Haagen -to supply him with his virus material. (_NO-124, Pros. Ex. 193._) Haagen -replied to Gutzeit’s letter on 27 June 1944 stating that he was glad -that Dohmen would be assigned to him as of 15 July. He further stated -that he was working with Kalk, Buechner, and Zuckschwert, all officers -of the Luftwaffe, on jaundice problems and that he had arranged with -Kalk to conduct human experiments with his material. (_NO-125, Pros. Ex. -194._) On the same date Haagen wrote to his collaborator Kalk, who was -attached to the staff of the defendant Schroeder, stating as follows: - - “In the enclosure I send you a copy of a letter from Gutzeit and - my reply. We must proceed as soon as possible with the - experiments on human beings. These experiments, of course, - should be carried out at Strasbourg or in its vicinity. Could - you in your official position take the necessary steps to obtain - the required experimental subjects? I don’t know what sort of - subjects Gutzeit has at his disposal, whether they are soldiers - or other people.” (_NO-126, Pros. Ex. 195._) - -The remark about “other people” is an obvious reference to concentration -camp inmates, upon whom Haagen had long since been experimenting with -virulent typhus virus, while the reference to “Strasbourg or in its -vicinity”, indicates the concentration camp Natzweiler. (See typhus -experiments _supra_.) Herr Kalk and his chief, the defendant Schroeder, -were well advised on how to procure concentration camp inmates for -medical experiments because only a few weeks before Schroeder himself -had requested inmates from Himmler for the sea-water experiments. -(_NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134._) - -The record shows that Dohmen did in fact go to Strasbourg to work with -Haagen on the direct orders of Schreiber. (_Tr. p. 2752._) Handloser was -advised of this collaboration of Dohmen and Haagen. (_Tr. p. 2757._) - -Still another series of jaundice experiments was planned with which -Handloser was connected. On 29 January 1945 Mrugowsky wrote to Grawitz -as follows: - - “Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Dresel, Director of the - Hygienic Institute of the University of Leipzig, has cultivated - a virus from persons suffering from hepatitis and succeeded in - transplanting it on animals. - - “It is necessary to make experiments on human beings in order to - determine the fact that this virus is indeed the effective virus - hepatitis epidemica. The plenipotentiary for research on - epidemics in the Reich Research Council therefore addressed - himself to me with the request to carry out the above - experiments. - - “I am asking you to obtain authorization from the Reich Leader - SS to carry out the necessary experiments on 20 suitable - prisoners who have hitherto never suffered from hepatitis - epidemica, at the typhus experimental station of the - concentration camp in Buchenwald.” (_NO-1303, Pros. Ex. 467._) - -The plenipotentiary for research on epidemics in the Reich Research -Council who requested these experiments on concentration camp inmates -was Generalarzt Schreiber, at the same time commander of Lehrgruppe C of -the Military Medical Academy under Handloser. (_Tr. p. 5402._) Schreiber -had been designated by Handloser for the very purpose of coordinating -jaundice research, and the meeting in Breslau was called to that end. - -In view of this evidence outlined above, it can only be concluded that -the jaundice experiments were carried out by subordinates of the -defendant Handloser with his knowledge and approval. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT - SCHROEDER_ - - * * * * * - - _EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS_ - -In June 1944 a conference of experts was called for the purpose of -coordinating jaundice research. This conference took place at Breslau -and was presided over by Schreiber. (_Tr. p. 2752._) Handloser, Gutzeit, -and Haagen were all present at this conference. (_Tr. p. 2717._) Haagen -admitted during cross-examination that experiments on human beings were -discussed. That criminal experiments on concentration camp inmates were -discussed is clear from the fact that Schreiber in January 1945 -personally requested Mrugowsky to make available inmates for hepatitis -experiments by Dr. Dresel. (_NO-1303, Pros. Ex. 467._) Schreiber -assigned groups of physicians to work together on jaundice problems. -Dohmen, Gutzeit, and Haagen were assigned to one of these groups. (_Tr. -p. 2717._) On 12 June 1944 Haagen himself requested Schreiber to assign -Dohmen to work with him. Generalarzt Schreiber at that time was -commander of the Military Medical Academy under Handloser. (_NO-229, -Pros. Ex. 190._) Schreiber complied with this request. (_NO-300, Pros. -Ex. 191._) - -On 24 June 1944 Gutzeit wrote to Haagen that he was also requesting -Schreiber to assign Dohmen to Haagen. He went on to state that he was -making preparations for experiments on human beings and he wanted Haagen -to supply him with his virus material. (_NO-124, Pros. Ex. 193._) Haagen -replied to Gutzeit’s letter on 27 June 1944 stating that he was glad -that Dohmen would be assigned to him as of 15 July. He further stated -that he was working with Kalk, Buechner, and Zuckschwert, all officers -of the Luftwaffe, on jaundice problems and that he had arranged with -Kalk to conduct human experiments with his material. (_NO-125, Pros. Ex. -194._) On the same date Haagen wrote to his collaborator Kalk, who was a -consultant to defendant Schroeder and a specialist on hepatitis (_Tr. p. -3632_), stating as follows: - - “In the enclosure I send you a copy of a letter from Gutzeit and - my reply. We must proceed as soon as possible with the - experiments on human beings. These experiments, of course, - should be carried out at Strasbourg or in its vicinity. Could - you in your official position take the necessary steps to obtain - the required experimental subjects. I don’t know what sort of - subjects Gutzeit has at his disposal, whether they are soldiers - or other people.” (_NO-126, Pros. Ex. 195._) - -The remark about “other people” is an obvious reference to concentration -camp inmates, upon whom Haagen had long since been experimenting with -virulent typhus virus, while the reference to “Strasbourg or in its -vicinity”, indicates the concentration camp Natzweiler. The witness Olga -Eyer, secretary to Haagen, testified that prisoners were requested for -the epidemic jaundice experiments. (_Tr. p. 1759._) Haagen would have -the Tribunal believe that he referred to Freiburg and Heidelberg which -are 60 and 100 kilometers respectively from Strasbourg, while Natzweiler -was only a few kilometers away. (_Tr. p. 9579._) - -Herr Kalk and his chief, the defendant Schroeder, were well advised on -how to procure concentration camp inmates for medical experiments -because only a few weeks before Schroeder himself had requested inmates -from Himmler for the sea-water experiments. (_NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134._) - - * * * * * - - c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT - HANDLOSER_[54] - - * * * * * - - _Epidemic Jaundice_ (_Hepatitis_) - -The problem of experiments in the field of hepatitis research consists -in finding the most efficient treatment of the disease and identifying -the virus in order to evolve a vaccine. - -Discussions of this problem were extensive during this trial. The -indictment on this point applies only when experiments on human beings, -as understood by the prosecution, such as infection with jaundice germs, -could have effects detrimental to health. On this the experts, -Professors Gutzeit and Rose, have expressed their opinions. Professor -Gutzeit, as one of the foremost specialists for problems connected with -epidemic jaundice, on the basis of his extensive practical clinical -experience and experiments on his own person, has described the effects -as follows: - - “As far as I, as clinical physician, can judge, the development - of vaccines, and of experiments to gain these vaccines, is - harmless. This harmlessness is shown by the fact that - spontaneous outbreaks of jaundice are not dangerous in - themselves. Like every other vaccine, a potential vaccine which - is being developed for or against hepatitis may cause harmless - local reactions on the place of vaccination.” - -Furthermore he said, “it (epidemic jaundice) is a harmless disease” -(_German Tr. p. 2761_); “it has no damaging after-effect on the liver.” -(_German Tr. p. 2763._) Professor Rose has expressed his expert opinion -in the following words: “Hepatitis epidemica as such is not considered a -dangerous disease by hygienists.” (_German Tr. pp. 5433, 5434._) Then he -continues that naturally, just as in the case of a nasal cold, so in the -case of hepatitis, complications may arise as after-effects, “but no one -would consider hepatitis as a dangerous disease for that reason.” -(_German Tr. p. 6454._) As to the experiments, Professor Rose says: - - “In Germany, experiments with hepatitis virus have been carried - out by Eppinger, Vogt, Esser, and Lembel and no incidents - occurred. All experiments took place without ill effects. This - is, of course, very limited experimental material, but material - concerning hundreds of cases which permit a more accurate - judgment has been published in England and America. Up to date I - have knowledge of about 60 experiments on human beings for - hepatitis and no single incident has been reported yet.” - -The prosecuting counsel furnished no proof in this trial that infection -experiments with jaundice organisms on unwilling persons took place at -all in the concentration camps. Whereas in the case of the other facts -the prosecution produced medical records or a witness to prove that such -experiments had been carried out, this was not possible with regard to -epidemic jaundice. Proof was limited to the presentation of documents -which one must admit might have given any layman, or even a doctor who -was not a hygienist or a clinical physician, the impression that the -experiments in question must have been dangerous. The letter of Dr. -Grawitz dated 1 June 1943 to Himmler (_NO-010, Pros. Ex. 187_) contains -the sentence, “We must expect deaths.” - -According to the expert opinions expressed by Rose, Gutzeit, and Hoering -this view is incorrect and incomprehensible. The experts exclude in -practice all possibility of death. Rose declares (_German Tr. p. 6455_): - - “Grawitz, who had only concerned himself for years with the - business of administration, did not have sufficient - understanding of the matter,” or “that he was cautious to an - exaggerated degree * * *.” - -Professor Gutzeit (_German Tr. p. 2764_) says of Document NO-010, -Prosecution Exhibit 187: - - “The only way I can explain it to myself is that Grawitz himself - was not sufficiently informed about this jaundice, the course of - the disease, and its danger. Certainly Grawitz was no specialist - on this matter, this jaundice, and has for a considerable time - been out of touch with practical medicine.” - -Professor Gutzeit gives the mortality figure for jaundice as less than -0.1 percent; finally he declares (_German Tr. p. 2762_) that severe pain -and suffering, such as mentioned in the indictment, do not occur when a -patient is injected with jaundice organisms. A layman can also -understand that over-injection can only produce at the most the disease -itself, the effects of which have already been represented as harmless. - -As already stated, the prosecution furnished no concrete assertions that -the intended experiments were made in Sachsenhausen. Here we are -speaking of the time from June 1942. At this time Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen -was allowed to work in the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen in -accordance with permission given by Himmler. Professor Gutzeit worked -together with Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen insofar as he conducted the hepatitis -research work from the clinical side, while Dr. Dohmen was occupied with -basic bacteriological research, in the Robert Koch Institute where he -was stationed at the time in question and worked under Professor -Gildemeister. Evidence was given by Professor Rose (_German Tr. p. -6468_) and Dr. Lentz. (_Rose 16, Rose Ex. 12._) - -As a result of the mutual exchange of experience which took place, we -must assume that Professor Gutzeit was informed about Dohmen’s research -work in this field. Gutzeit also testified upon oath what Dohmen had -reported to him about his activity in Sachsenhausen. According to this, -Dohmen was only able to escape pressure from Himmler and Grawitz to -leave him his breeding stocks by apparently acceding to the offer that -he should conduct experiments in Sachsenhausen, but in actual fact -undertaking experiments only on prisoners of concentration camps which -could be carried out without any risk of bodily harm or loss of life. - -In like manner the prosecution was obliged to furnish proof with regard -to the experiments asserted to have been made on concentration camp -prisoners in Natzweiler. The only witness provided by the prosecution -for this, a woman by the name of Eyer, did _not_ confirm what the -prosecution affirmed, namely that experiments intended by Professor -Haagen in the research into hepatitis had been carried out in the -concentration camp at Natzweiler. (_German Tr. p. 1765._) - -Dr. Cording testified in an affidavit submitted by Professor Rose: - - “For my training in the study of hygiene and bacteriology I was - detailed in February 1944 to the Hygiene Institute of Strasbourg - University where I was engaged, until the military occupation of - the town on 23 November 1944, almost exclusively on work - connected with hepatitis (series of inoculations of mice and - proof of virus in the organs of mice) under Professor Haagen.” - - * * * * * - - “It did not come to my ears that during the time I was in - Strasbourg experiments with hepatitis were made on human beings - within the framework of this cooperation. In the middle of July - 1944 Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen went from Giessen to visit Professor - Haagen in Strasbourg for about 2-3 days. During this time he saw - for himself in the Institute the results obtained from our - research work in hepatitis. He confirmed that the results of his - experiments had been similar but that all his research material - had been destroyed in an air raid on Berlin. At present he was - busy in Giessen making a fresh start with his own experiments. - - “I know for a fact that Dr. Dohmen was not in Natzweiler during - the time of his visit to Strasbourg. I know nothing of any - further cooperation between Professor Haagen and Dr. Dohmen.” - -Thus it is proved that Dr. Dohmen was not at the Natzweiler -concentration camp and did not take part in any experiments on human -beings there in this particular branch of medicine. In correcting his -affidavit (_NO-371, Pros. Ex. 186_) the defendant Rudolf Brandt declared -upon oath that he had no knowledge that these experiments had been -carried out in Sachsenhausen and that some of the prisoners died. In -like manner he revoked his evidence concerning the cooperation of Dr. -Dohmen and Dr. Haagen in the Natzweiler concentration camp and declared -that no facts were known to him about this. (_German Tr. pp. -1990-1993._) Finally Rudolf Brandt declared in his affidavit (_Handloser -11, Handloser Ex. 35_) that no facts were known to him from which could -be deduced that the defendant Handloser had any knowledge of the -experiments in Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler. - -If one also takes into consideration Professor Gutzeit’s testimony that -Professor Handloser had reported nothing about Dohmen working in the -concentration camp in Sachsenhausen or of his activity there, the -following emerges: Professor Handloser’s answer is correct that he had -no knowledge that experiments with epidemic jaundice were conducted on -human beings in the concentration camps of Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler. - -On the other hand Professor Handloser declares that he had a -considerable interest in the hepatitis research work, as it is also -established that not only his consulting physician Gutzeit but also -numerous other offices had concerned themselves with hepatitis research. -Professor Handloser gave reasons, confirmed by Professor Gutzeit, why -he, as medical officer responsible for the management of health matters -in the army, had the duty to give importance to the research in order to -find out what caused epidemic jaundice. As far as Handloser knew, this -research was carried out in accordance with recognized medical practice, -i. e., by experiments on animals and on the persons of the experimenters -themselves; likewise by unobjectionable clinical examinations of human -beings. - -This also emerges from the hepatitis meeting of June 1944 in Breslau. -Professor Gutzeit also reported about this meeting and declared upon -oath that six or seven different hepatitis research workers had given -reports on their experiments and the results obtained. Nothing was said -about experiments on human beings. From this Professor Handloser, who -took part in the meeting which included the military and civilian -sector, must have gained the impression that research into hepatitis was -conducted in a generally recognized medical fashion. - -As it could not be established at this meeting whether the organisms -bred by the various offices were identical, or whether it was a question -of different viruses (_German Tr. p. 2737_), the suggestion made by -Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber, who as the delegate of the Reich Research -Council for the combat of epidemics was the chairman of the meeting, was -to the point and served the purpose. His suggestion was that various -working groups for hepatitis research be formed in order that results -obtained on each side might be compared. On both direct and -cross-examination, Professor Gutzeit gave a convincing explanation for -his letter of 24 June 1944 (_NO-124, Pros. Ex. 193_), in which he speaks -of the experiments “_crucis ad hominem_.” He declared that he had -prepared with his students and candidates a vaccination with the virus -material placed at his disposal in Breslau. (_German Tr. pp. -2739-2740._) - -Dr. Dohmen’s visit to Strasbourg, which was requested by Haagen, was to -have been made in compliance with the suggestion of Dr. Schreiber to -form a circle of research groups. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - Pros. Ex. - Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page - NO-371 186 Affidavit of defendant Rudolf Brandt, 14 503 - October 1946, concerning experiments to - determine the cause of epidemic jaundice. - NO-011 188 Note from Himmler to Grawitz, 16 June 1943, 504 - concerning epidemic jaundice experiments - at concentration camp Sachsenhausen. - NO-299 190 Letter from Haagen to Schreiber, 12 June 505 - 1944, concerning epidemic jaundice - experiments. - NO-125 194 Copy of letter from Haagen to Gutzeit, 27 506 - June 1944, concerning epidemic jaundice - experiments on human beings. - - _Testimony_ - -Extract from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt 506 - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-371 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 186 - - AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT, 14 OCTOBER 1946, CONCERNING - EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE - -I, Rudolf Brandt, being duly sworn, depose and state: - - * * * * * - - _Experiments to Determine the Cause of Epidemic Jaundice_ (_Hepatitis - Epidemica_) - -3. About the middle of 1943, Dr. Grawitz, Reichsarzt SS, wrote to -Himmler that Dr. Karl Brandt wished to obtain prisoners for -experimentation on the causes of a jaundice epidemic. He had been doing -research on this problem with the assistance of Dr. Dohmen, a medical -officer attached to the Army Medical Corps and the Robert Koch -Institute. Experiments had thus far disclosed that contagious jaundice -is transferred by a virus and human beings were desired for inoculation -with germs which had been cultivated in animals. Grawitz advised that -death of some of the experimental subjects must be expected. He wanted -to know if Dr. Dohmen could be permitted to carry out the experiments at -the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, as desired by Dr. Karl Brandt. - -4. Himmler wrote Grawitz that Dr. Dohmen had his permission to conduct -the experiments at Sachsenhausen, and for that purpose he had Oswald -Pohl of the WVHA allocate a number of prisoners to be used as -experimental subjects. I know that these experiments were carried out -and that some of the prisoners died as a result. - -5. Dr. Eugen Haagen, Oberstabsarzt and consultant in hygiene for the -Luftwaffe, had also been doing research work at the Natzweiler -concentration camp in an effort to discover an effective inoculation -against epidemic jaundice. As I recall, Dr. Dohmen collaborated with -Haagen in 1944 at Natzweiler and experiments on involuntary human beings -were conducted which resulted in deaths. - -6. These experiments were of course well known to Karl Brandt as he was -personally furthering them. Handloser and Schroeder must also have known -of them because Dohmen and Haagen were doctors in the Medical Services -of the Army and the Luftwaffe respectively. Generalarzt Paul Rostock was -also well informed on all research work of this nature. - -I have read the above statement in German, consisting of two (2) pages, -and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I -have had the opportunity to make any changes and corrections in the -foregoing statement. This statement was given by me freely and -voluntarily, without promise of reward and I was subjected to no duress -or threat of any kind. - - [Signed] R. BRANDT - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-011 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 188 - -NOTE FROM HIMMLER TO GRAWITZ, 16 JUNE 1943, CONCERNING EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE - EXPERIMENTS AT CONCENTRATION CAMP SACHSENHAUSEN - -The Reich Leader SS -Day Book No 1652/43, RF/BN - - XIa-/-43 - Field H. Q., 16 June 1943 - -Subject: Investigation of the cause of the infectious jaundice -(hepatitis epidemica) - -Reference: Yours of 1 June 1943—Az.: 420/IV/43—Diary No. 6/43 g.Kdos. - - Top Secret - -Reich Physician SS and Police 4 Copies -Berlin 3d Copy - -I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 1 June 1943. - -1. I approve that eight criminals condemned in Auschwitz (eight Jews of -the Polish resistance movement condemned to death) should be used for -experiments. - -2. I agree that Dr. Dohmen should make these experiments in -Sachsenhausen. - -3. I agree with your opinion that a real fight against infectious -jaundice would be of unheard [of] value. - - [Signed] H. HIMMLER. - -2. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl,[55] Berlin - -Carbon copy forwarded with request that you will duly note. - - [Signature] SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-299 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 190 - - LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO SCHREIBER, 12 JUNE 1944, CONCERNING EPIDEMIC - JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS - - 12 June 1944 - -Generalarzt Professor Dr. Schreiber -Academy of Military Medicine -Berlin NW - -Dear Generalarzt: - -Enclosed I am sending you my hepatitis report for further use. At the -same time I would like to use this opportunity to renew my invitation to -Stabsarzt Dohmen. Since I do not know his present address, may I direct -this invitation to you and suggest that Dr. Dohmen be assigned to me for -several weeks so that we may discover and possibly work on questions we -have in common. This would probably be the quickest way to determine -whether we have the same virus or not. A satisfactory date for Dohmen’s -visit to begin would be 15 July. - -At the same time I should like to approach the subject of your -negotiations for mice. My supplies, and particularly my cultures, are so -depleted that they absolutely must be rejuvenated and refilled. You told -me in Hohenlychen that it is possible for you to secure mice, even in -large numbers. May I ask you to endeavor to secure for me several -thousand mice of both sexes, preferably only young animals. - -Thirdly I would like to ask whether the hepatitis research will be -carried on in future out of funds of the Reich Research Council? My -funds for this branch are now exhausted and I am faced with the question -as to whether to apply for further funds to my Medical Chief of the -Luftwaffe or to you. I would be grateful to you to be informed about -this shortly. - - With kindest greetings and compliments, - Heil Hitler! - Very devotedly yours, - [Signed] HAAGEN - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-125 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 194 - -COPY OF LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO GUTZEIT, 27 JUNE 1944, CONCERNING EPIDEMIC - JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS - -Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. E. Haagen, -Consulting Hygienist to the Air Fleet Physician Reich - - Strasbourg, 27 June 1944 - -To: Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Gutzeit -Consulting Physician to the Army Medical Inspector, -Medical Clinic of University of Breslau, Hobrechtufer 4 - -My dear colleague Gutzeit, - -Many thanks for your letter of 24/6/44. I am glad that Herr Dohmen will -come here on 15 July. We shall then review all common hepatitis -questions and perhaps also set up the experiments together. - -I cannot at present definitely answer your inquiry about human -experiments. As you know, I am working with Herr Kalk, Herr Buechner, -and Herr Zuckschwert. Naturally, I have already arranged with Herr Kalk -that we shall undertake that type of experiment with our material. I -must therefore first determine the point of view of the others -concerned. - -I shall be very glad to begin work on the nephritis material from your -Oberstarzt K (?) [sic]. - - With best greetings, - Heil Hitler! - Yours - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT[56] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. SERVATIUS: The indictment mentions experiments with hepatitis. A -letter from Grawitz to Himmler says that you furthered these -experiments. Did you yourself do any clinical work on this question? - -DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: I never did any work in connection with hepatitis -epidemica, for that would have been during the war, as before the war -this disease was not given much importance in Germany. During the war I -did not deal with this question because I was too busy with other -things, and also because such a purely internal disease, although -perhaps of interest to the hygienist, was relatively uninteresting to me -as a surgeon. - -Q. Did you allocate research assignments on this subject? How about Dr. -Dohmen? - -A. I do not know why I should have given a research assignment to Dr. -Dohmen. Of course the question of hepatitis was a question which -interested everyone, for it was encountered everywhere in the East. But, -for that reason I would not have given special attention to that -disease. It had no relation to other things which were of more interest -to me as a surgeon. I know the letter. I was told about it last year. I -saw it here again for the first time this year. It says that I had asked -Grawitz to have special hepatitis work carried out by Dr. Dohmen. Dr. -Dohmen, the letter goes on, was to obtain seven or eight prisoners for -that purpose and the lives of these prisoners would be endangered. It is -not clear to me in what connection, and for what reason, my name was -mentioned as the instigator of hepatitis research, for in all the rest -of the correspondence, and in all the other documents, there is not even -the slightest hint that I had any particular interest in this question, -or that I was so interested that I would have started the research. I -never really knew that the experiments were actually carried out, and I -never received any report of results. There are indications contrary to -the sense of this letter, especially when it says these experiments are -to be carried out on persons condemned to death. Hepatitis epidemica is -not a disease as dangerous as all that. I have inquired meanwhile, and -know that compared with malaria, for example, it is only about a fifth -or a tenth as dangerous. I have already discussed today my relationship -with Himmler and with Grawitz. I did not invent that; that was actually -the truth. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that in all the -correspondence concerning hepatitis, one year later, after the first -letter failed to have the desired effect, Professor Schreiber sought a -way to approach Himmler in order to have hepatitis research work -continued. - -Schreiber was the deputy for epidemic control in the Reich Research -Council, so that I may assume that, for some reason which is not quite -dear to me, Grawitz possibly confused Schreiber and me in the first -letter. That is conceivable. The letter is dated 1 June 1943. A short -time before that there was a meeting of the Military Medical Academy, -and probably Grawitz, who was present, talked to Schreiber as well. In -any case I am not able to give any information about this question of -hepatitis, and certainly not about any experiments which actually took -place. I have no information; I received no report; and I have not heard -from any other source even now that these experiments were really -conducted. It seems to me significant that the witness Schmidt, who was -heard here, testified that the experiments were certainly not conducted -in Strasbourg, as Dohmen, who wanted to conduct them, was there for only -two or three days himself. - - * * * * * - ------ - -[54] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14-15 July 1947, -pp. 10818-10849. - -[55] Defendant in Case of United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See -Vol. V. - -[56] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3, 4, 5, -6, 7 Feb. 1947, pp. 2301-2661. - - 9. TYPHUS AND OTHER VACCINE EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, -Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose, -Becker-Freyseng and Hoven were charged with special responsibility for -and participation in criminal conduct involving typhus experiments (par. -6 (J) of the indictment). In the indictment, “spotted fever” was used -for the German word “Fleckfieber”, but later this was translated as -“typhus”. (_See also judgment, Vol. II._) On this charge the defendants -Handloser, Schroeder, Genzken, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Sievers, Rose, -and Hoven were convicted, and the defendants Karl Brandt, Rostock, -Gebhardt, Poppendick, and Becker-Freyseng were acquitted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the typhus experiments is -contained in the final briefs against the defendants Mrugowsky and -Schroeder. Extracts from them are set forth below on pages 508 to 528. -The extract of the prosecution brief against Mrugowsky summarizes -evidence concerning experiments with old blood plasma, blood -transfusions, and withdrawal of blood from inmates of the Buchenwald -concentration camp for the purpose of manufacturing a typhus -convalescent serum. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the -defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing brief -for the defendant Rose and the final plea and closing brief for the -defendant Mrugowsky. These appear below on pages 528 to 554. This -argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 555 -to 631. - - b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY_ - - _Typhus and Other Vaccine Experiments_ - -The attack against Russia in 1941 gave rise to many military medical -problems, not the least of which was typhus. The disease reached serious -proportions in the fall of 1941, and typhus vaccines were so scarce that -only doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel in exposed positions -could be given inoculations. (_Tr. pp. 3160-3161._) - -One of the most important problems with respect to the increased -production of typhus vaccines was the effectiveness of the so-called -Cox-Haagen-Gildemeister vaccine, which was produced from egg-yolk -cultures. The effective Weigl vaccine, produced from the intestines of -lice, was available, but its manufacture was expensive and complicated. -The egg-yolk vaccine was relatively simple to produce but its protective -qualities were not regarded as having been sufficiently proved. -(_NO-732, Pros. Ex. 451._) - -The entry for 29 December 1941 in the Ding diary proves that a -conference was held on that date between Handloser, as Army Medical -Inspector; Conti, of the Ministry of Interior; Reiter, of the Public -Health Department; Gildemeister, of the Robert Koch Institute; and -Mrugowsky, of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. (_NO-265, Pros. -Ex. 287._) - -At the conference it was decided that the typhus vaccine from egg yolks -was to be tested on human beings to determine its efficacy. On the same -day an earlier conference was held which discussed the same problem. It -took place at the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and was attended by -Bieber of the Interior; Gildemeister; representatives of the General -Government in Occupied Poland; officials of the Behring Works of I. G. -Farben, and Oberstabsarzt Scholz, of the Army Medical Inspectorate. The -minutes of this conference state that: - - “The vaccine which is presently being produced by the Behring - Works from chicken eggs shall be tested for its effectiveness in - an experiment. For this purpose Dr. Bieber will contact - Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky.” - -Since Mrugowsky was not present at this conference, it is obvious that -other conferences took place in which this matter was discussed with -him, which is corroborated in the entry of the Ding diary referred to -above. - -As a result of the decision reached at these conferences, the -experimental station in the Buchenwald concentration camp under SS -Sturmfuehrer, later Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding-Schuler (hereinafter -referred to as “Ding”) was established. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287; Tr. p. -1154._) The charts drawn by the defendant Mrugowsky, among other proof, -show that the experimental station in Buchenwald was subordinated to the -Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS under Mrugowsky from the date of its -establishment until the end of the war. (_NO-416, Pros. Ex. 22_; -_NO-417, Pros. Ex. 23_.) - -In the beginning of 1943, the research station in Buchenwald was -officially called the “Department of Typhus and Virus Research” of the -Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. The experiments were carried out in -Block 46, the so-called Clinical Block, with the exception of a few -experiments early in 1942. In the autumn of 1943 a vaccine production -department was established in Block 50. Both Blocks 46 and 50 were part -of the Division for Typhus and Virus Research. The defendant Hoven was -the deputy to Ding in both blocks. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287; Tr. pp. -1155-1156._) - -Criminal experiments on concentration camp inmates without their consent -were carried out in Block 46 to test typhus, yellow fever, smallpox, -typhoid, para-typhoid A and B, cholera, and diphtheria vaccines. - -The typhus experiments in Buchenwald were carried out on a very large -scale and resulted in many deaths. The manner of execution and the -results of the experiments are proved in great detail by the Ding diary -and the testimony of Kogon as well as other evidence. The first -experiment began on 6 January 1942 with the vaccination of 135 inmates -with the Weigl, Cox-Haagen-Gildemeister, Behring Normal, or Behring -Strong vaccines. All vaccinations were completed by 1 February. On 3 -March 1942, all of the vaccinated subjects and 10 inmates who had not -been vaccinated (known as the “control group”) were artificially -infected with virulent virus of Rickettsia-Prowazeki furnished by the -Robert Koch Institute. The experiment was concluded on 19 April 1942. -Five deaths occurred, three in the control group and two among the -vaccinated subjects. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_; _Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky -Ex. 20_.) - -In later experiments the number of experimental subjects usually varied -between 40 and 60, but the proportion of control subjects was increased. -Approximately two-thirds of the experimental subjects were vaccinated -while one-third remained without protection. A few weeks after -vaccination, all experimental subjects were artificially infected with -typhus. The course of the disease was then observed in the protected and -control groups and the effectiveness of the vaccine was determined. -(_Tr. p. 1168._) Therapeutic experiments were conducted in the same -manner with various drugs. For example, between 24 April and 1 June -1943, experiments were performed to test the effect of acridine -granulate and rutenol on typhus. Of a total of 39 inmates used, 21 died. -(_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286._) - -Artificial infection was accomplished in various ways. In the beginning -the skin was lacerated and infected with a typhus culture. Contagious -lice were used to a limited extent. For the most part, however, -infection was brought about by the intravenous or intramuscular -injection of fresh blood containing the typhus virus. For the sole -purpose of maintaining a constant source of infected fresh blood, 3 to 5 -inmates per month were artificially infected with typhus. The use of -these so-called “passage persons” began at least as early as April 1943 -and continued until March 1945. Substantially all of them died. These -victims were so much “a matter of course” that their fatalities were not -included by Ding in his diary. (_Tr. pp. 1168-1171._) - -An analysis of the Ding diary proves that a total of 729 inmates were -experimented on with typhus, of whom 154 died. To these figures must be -added the passage persons, of whom between 90 and 120 died. - -So much for the cold statistics of the experiments. Block 46, where the -experiments were carried out, was a horror for every inmate of the -Buchenwald concentration camp. Everyone selected for the experiments -expected to die a slow and frightful death. The man-to-man passage of -the typhus virus created a form of “super” typhus. (_Tr. p. 1168._) -While typhus normally has a mortality of about 30 percent in unprotected -cases, in an experiment on 13 April 1943 five out of six persons -infected died. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._) Many of the experimental -subjects became delirious. (_Tr. pp. 1172, 1173._) In the experiments -with acridine and rutenol, the subjects vomited up to seven times a day. -Bronchial pneumonia, nephritis, intestinal bleeding, subcutaneous -phlegmones below the larynx, parotitis, gangrene of the shank, -furunculosis, bronchitis, and decubital sores developed as a result of -this treatment. (_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286._) Experimental subjects who -survived and had a lighter course of the disease because the vaccine -with which they were vaccinated was effective were forced to watch the -death struggle of their fellow inmates. There was an iron discipline in -Block 46, the cat-o’-nine-tails ruled supreme, and the experimental -subjects were completely deprived of the last vestige of personal -freedom which they had in the camp. (_Tr. pp. 1172, 1173._) - -It is hardly necessary to state that the experimental subjects used in -the typhus, as well as all other experiments in Buchenwald, were not -volunteers. One does not normally volunteer to be killed. In the first -series of typhus experiments, a number of inmates were duped into -submitting after being told it was a harmless affair and that they would -get additional food. They were not informed that they would be -artificially infected with typhus nor that they might die. (_Tr. p. -1162_; _see also the testimony of Kogon in Case 4,[57] Tr. pp. 731, 732; -NO-3680, Pros. Ex. 536_.) These subjects cannot be described as -volunteers. After the first few experiments, it was no longer possible -to deceive inmates into offering themselves for the experiments. -Thereafter, up until about the fall of 1943, experimental subjects were -chosen arbitrarily from among the inmates, whether criminals, political -prisoners, or homosexuals. Intrigue among the prisoners themselves -sometimes played a role in the selection. In the fall of 1943, the camp -administration no longer desired to take the responsibility for the -selection of the experimental subjects. Ding no longer was satisfied -with verbal orders from Mrugowsky to carry out the experiments and he -asked for written orders. He approached Mrugowsky with the request that -the Reich Leader SS should appoint the experimental subjects. According -to a directive from Himmler to Nebe of the Reich criminal police, only -those inmates were to be used who had been confined for 10 years or -more. Thereafter, most of the experimental subjects were habitual -criminals, many of whom were transported to Buchenwald from other camps. -But political prisoners were still included because they were in -disfavor with the camp administration or because of camp intrigues. None -of the experimental inmates had been condemned to death, except a few -Russian prisoners of war who had not been tried or sentenced. They were -from some 9,500 Russian prisoners of war who were killed in Buchenwald. -The experimental subjects were generally in good physical condition. -(_Tr. pp. 1162, 1163._) The experimental subjects included not only -Germans, but also Poles, Russians, and Frenchmen, as well as prisoners -of war. The testimony of Kogon is applicable not only to the typhus -experiments but to the other experiments in Buchenwald as well. (_Tr. p. -1167._) - -This testimony of Kogon is corroborated by the letter from Himmler to -the Chief of the Security Police dated 27 February 1944. He said: - - “I agree that professional prisoners be taken for experiments - with the typhus vaccine. But only those professional criminals - should be chosen who have served more than ten years in prison; - that is, not with ten prior convictions but with a total penalty - of ten years. - - “SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe is to supervise the disposal of these - inmates. I don’t wish the physician to pick out inmates without - my counter-control.” (_NO-1189, Pros. Ex. 471._) - -The same document shows that Mrugowsky received a copy of this decision -on change in procedure and that it had been arrived at after a -conference between Mrugowsky and Nebe. - -The testimony of Kogon is further corroborated by the witness -Kirchheimer (_Tr. pp. 1321-1332_) and the affidavit of Hoven. (_NO-429, -Pros. Ex. 281._) - -The defense has contested the authenticity of the Ding diary. It is -impossible to determine from the record precisely what their position is -in that regard. That the diary does not consist of entries made day by -day is obvious from the face of the document itself. It is rather a -document which periodically summarizes the experiments which in many -cases lasted several months. Ding also kept a daily diary and work -reports. (_Tr. p. 1226._) These obviously form the basis of the diary in -evidence. The defense lays great stress on the fact that page one of the -diary was typed with an older ribbon than pages two et seq., and hence -was probably typed later. The prosecution has no quarrel with that. -Kogon gave the very obvious explanation that the page was probably -re-typed when the name of the experimental station was designated as the -“Department for Typhus and Virus Research”. (_Tr. p. 1228._) At best, -the reasons for re-typing pages are now a matter of sheer speculation. -No valid inference can be drawn from that fact alone. The Ding diary was -taken by Kogon from Buchenwald. It was in his exclusive possession until -delivered to the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. He testified -that he did not alter the document in any respect and that the -signatures of Ding, and later Schuler, are genuine. (_Tr. pp. -1164-1166._) He had no motive for changing the diary. The document was -authenticated by the prosecution as being in the same condition as when -received. - -The experts of the defense established that the document was written on -the same typewriter with the same kind of paper. Mrugowsky admitted that -Ding’s signature is on substantially all of the pages of the diary. -(_Tr. p. 5410._) There is no contention they have been forged. A -comparison of the admittedly genuine signature of Ding on a vaccination -chart (_NO-578, Pros. Ex. 284_), and of Schuler on an affidavit signed -by him after the war (_NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283_), with the signatures of -Ding-Schuler in the diary prove beyond any doubt that the signatures are -authentic. - -The defense has not established a single inaccuracy in the Ding diary. -The prosecution, on the other hand, has proved the detailed accuracy of -the diary time and again by the introduction of independent documents. -It will suffice to cite a few examples. The work report of the “Division -for Typhus and Virus Research” for the year 1943, which was sent to -Mrugowsky, substantiates the corresponding entries in the diary in every -detail. (_NO-571, Pros. Ex. 285._) The paper written by Ding on the -treatment of typhus with acridine derivatives, approved by Mrugowsky, -checks to the last detail with the experiment reported by the entries in -the diary for 24 April and 1 June 1943. (_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286._) -Mrugowsky’s letter of 5 May 1942 to Conti, Grawitz, Genzken, -Gildemeister, Eyer, and Demnitz reporting on a typhus vaccine experiment -is in fact a description of the first experimental series in Buchenwald -as given in the diary. This was a document submitted by the defense. -(_Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky Ex. 20._) Mrugowsky admitted he was reporting -on that experiment. (_Tr. p. 5414._) The entry in the diary for 19 -August 1942 concerning the testing of the Bucharest [Cantacuzino] -vaccine made available by Rose, is corroborated by Mrugowsky’s letter to -Rose, dated 16 May 1942, asking for the vaccines. (_NO-1754, Pros. Ex. -491._) The entry for 8 March 1944 concerning the experiments with the -Ipsen [Copenhagen] vaccine, which the diary shows were suggested by -Rose, is substantiated by Rose’s letter to Mrugowsky of 2 December 1943 -(_NO-1186, Pros. Ex. 492_), and by Lolling’s letter to Grawitz of 14 -February 1944. (_NO-1188, Pros. Ex. 470_; _see also, NO-1189, Pros. Ex. -471_.) The yellow fever vaccine experiments reported in the diary on 10 -January 1943 are dealt with in a letter from the Behring Works to -Mrugowsky dated 5 January 1943. (_NO-1305, Pros. Ex. 469._) The -phosphorus bomb experiments are noted in the Ding diary under the dates -of 19 to 25 November 1943. The report on these experiments dated 2 -January 1944 shows the burning of inmates began on 19 November and ended -on 25 November 1943. (_NO-579, Pros. Ex. 288._) As to the conference -held on 29 December 1941 reported in the Ding diary, Mrugowsky made the -following statement in a pre-trial interrogation: “I remember that -meeting and it occurred to me that there were present Schreiber, -Gildemeister, Ding, and myself.” Mrugowsky admitted in open court having -made such a statement. (_Tr. p. 5380._) - -The above analysis of the authenticity and accuracy of the Ding diary, -while not exhaustive, suffices to show that the defense objection to -this document is completely without merit. There is scarcely a line in -the whole diary which has not been substantiated either by documents or -testimony. The diary must be accepted as accurate in its entirety. There -is no basis whatever for accepting some entries and rejecting others. -The defense has presented no credible evidence of _any_ inaccuracies. -The living record of the deceased Ding is the best evidence of what -actually happened. - -Other vaccine experiments were carried out in the experimental station -in Buchenwald. On request of the Medical Inspectorate of the Army, -yellow fever vaccine containing a live virus was tested in a large-scale -experiment on inmates which began on 10 January 1943. The arrangements -were made by Schreiber through the defendant Mrugowsky. (_NO-1305, Pros. -Ex. 469._) A very large number of inmates were vaccinated between 13 -January and 17 May 1943 at which time production of the yellow fever -vaccine was abandoned because of the military situation in North Africa. -The results of these experiments were sent to Amt XVI in the SS -Operational Headquarters, which was the hygiene office under Mrugowsky, -and to the Army Medical Inspectorate. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._) - -In the first part of 1943, Mrugowsky conferred with Handloser concerning -multiple vaccinations. (_Tr. p. 3064._) There can be no doubt that this -was the motivation for the large scale vaccination experiments on 45 -inmates of Buchenwald between 24 March and 20 April 1943, as set forth -in the Ding diary. Each person was vaccinated on eight different days -within four weeks against smallpox, typhoid, typhus, para-typhoid A and -B, cholera, and diphtheria. The report on these experiments was sent to -Mrugowsky’s office. Kogon testified that the experimental subjects were -given para-typhoid bacilli in potato salad. He also stated that the -experiments in Buchenwald with diseases other than typhus resulted in -deaths, although relatively fewer. (_Tr. pp. 1182, 1183._) - -Mrugowsky would have the Tribunal believe that he is in no way -responsible for the experiments carried out by Ding and Hoven in the -Buchenwald concentration camp. He testified, in effect, that Ding was -directly subordinated to Grawitz as far as the experiments were -concerned. (_Tr. p. 5067._) While he did admit that Ding was -subordinated to him for purposes of vaccine production in Block 50 in -Buchenwald, he said he had nothing whatever to do with the experiments -carried out in Block 46. The same contention was made by the defendant -Genzken. Mrugowsky testified that he was outraged by the idea of -experimenting on human beings since he was of the opinion that human -life is sacred. (_Tr. p. 5066._) - -The proof, however, is overwhelming that Mrugowsky ordered the -experiments carried out by Ding in Buchenwald. In his own pre-trial -affidavit Mrugowsky stated that the Division for Typhus and Virus -Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS in Buchenwald was -established in the beginning of 1942 by Genzken. He admitted that as -Chief of Amt XVI (hygiene) in the SS Operational Headquarters and as -Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, he was the immediate -superior of Ding. He stated further that experiments on inmates were -carried out by Ding in order to determine the effect of various typhus -vaccines. He admitted he obtained full knowledge of the work of Ding; -that he received reports from him on the experiments, including the -death rates, and that he informed Genzken. (_NO-423, Pros. Ex. 282._) -The two charts drawn by the defendant Mrugowsky clearly show that the -experimental station in Buchenwald under Ding was directly subordinated -to Mrugowsky from the time of its establishment until the collapse of -Germany. (_NO-416, Pros. Ex. 22_; _NO-417, Pros. Ex. 23_.) Mrugowsky -admitted Ding’s connection with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS -on cross-examination. (_Tr. p. 5371._) - -The pre-trial affidavit of the defendant Hoven who was deputy to Ding -and certainly in a position to know the facts, states that the Hygiene -Institute of the Waffen SS under Mrugowsky received all the reports on -the experiments in Block 46 and that Ding received orders directly from -Mrugowsky. Hoven outlined the chain of command as: Grawitz, Genzken, -Mrugowsky, and Ding. Ding went to Berlin for discussions with Mrugowsky -nearly every second week. Mrugowsky visited the home of Ding on one of -his trips to Buchenwald. (_NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281._) - -Kogon testified that Ding reported personally to Mrugowsky on the -experiments, and when he did not go to Berlin himself, he reported -regularly every three months in writing. (_Tr. pp. 1155-1186._) The -reports on the experiments carried out in Block 46 were sent to -Mrugowsky in Berlin. (_Tr. p. 1160._) Ding’s official correspondence was -primarily with Mrugowsky. (_Tr. p. 1157._) The instructions for the -execution of the experiments came from Mrugowsky. (_Tr. pp. 1163, -1219._) In the late summer of 1943 Mrugowsky became the sole chief of -Ding and issued all orders to him. (_Tr. p. 1202._) Mrugowsky occupied -such an important position that it would have been dangerous for Ding to -contact Grawitz over his head. (_Tr. p. 1241._) Mrugowsky visited the -experimental block in Buchenwald on several occasions. (_Tr. pp. 1244, -1245_; _Tr. p. 1329_.) - -The proof outlined above as to Mrugowsky’s responsibility is repeatedly -supported by documentary evidence. Ding’s work report for the year 1943, -which lists the experiments carried out in Block 46, was sent to -Mrugowsky and carried the letterhead “Hygiene Institute of the Waffen -SS, Division for Typhus and Virus Research, Weimar-Buchenwald.” -(_NO-571, Pros. Ex. 285._) This work report covers the experiments in -Block 46 and the production of vaccines in Block 50, which conclusively -proves that Mrugowsky’s assertion that his responsibility was limited to -Block 50 is completely false. The same report shows that Mrugowsky -inspected the Division for Typhus and Virus Research in Buchenwald on 3 -September 1943, and that Ding had several conferences with Mrugowsky. -Mrugowsky’s own secretary admitted that Ding’s reports about his -experiments on inmates went via the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS -to Grawitz. (_Mrugowsky 38, Mrugowsky Ex. 13._) - -Mrugowsky received Ding’s report on the treatment of typhus with -acridine derivatives. (_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286._) This report speaks of -clinical tests on human beings who were afflicted with typhus, but -Mrugowsky knew that Ding experimented by artificially infecting the -subjects. (_Tr. p. 5066._) The report shows on its face that 21 of the -experimental subjects died and that the inmates who survived had to -fight severe complications of the disease. This same experimental series -is reported in the Ding diary under the entries for 24 April and 1 June -1943. - -The first experimental series on typhus carried out in Buchenwald -between 6 January and 19 April 1942 in which 145 inmates were used as -experimental subjects was the basis of a report by Mrugowsky to Conti, -Grawitz, Genzken, Eyer, and Demnitz, dated 5 May 1942. (_Mrugowsky 10, -Mrugowsky Ex. 20._) Five of the subjects died as a result of these -experiments. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._) - -The experiments with the Cantacuzino vaccine from Bucharest, reported in -the Ding diary under the entry for 19 August 1942, were ordered by -Mrugowsky. This vaccine was furnished by the defendant Rose, who -requested Mrugowsky to arrange for the experiments. On 16 May 1942 -Mrugowsky wrote to Rose stating that Grawitz had consented to the -execution of the experiments and that the vaccine should be sent to him -(Mrugowsky). He also agreed to conduct experiments to determine whether -the louse could be infected by a vaccinated typhus patient. This, of -course, necessitated the infection of the experimental subject with -typhus. (_NO-1754, Pros. Ex. 491._) As a result of these experiments, -four of the subjects died. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._) - -The typhus experimental series No. VIII, during which the Ipsen vaccine -from Copenhagen was tested, was also ordered by the defendant Mrugowsky. -On 2 December 1943 Rose asked Mrugowsky to have the Ipsen vaccine tested -in Ding’s experimental station in Buchenwald. (_NO-1186, Pros. Ex. -492._) Mrugowsky expressly denied, during cross-examination, that he was -ever approached by Rose to have the Copenhagen [Ipsen] vaccine tested in -Buchenwald. He stated that: “If he had come to me I would have sent him -on to someone else. I would have said: ‘My dear man, that does not have -anything to do with me.’” (_Tr. pp. 5434, 5435._) On 21 February 1944 -Mrugowsky was notified that 30 “appropriate gypsies” would be made -available for testing the Ipsen vaccine. (_NO-1188, Pros. Ex. 470._) -Mrugowsky was further advised on 29 February 1944 that the experimental -subjects would be designated by the office of Nebe of the Reich criminal -police. (_NO-1189, Pros. Ex. 471._) The Ding diary proves that the -experiments with the Ipsen vaccine began on 8 March 1944 with 30 -experimental subjects, of whom six died as a result of the experiments. - -On 12 August 1944 the defendant Mrugowsky ordered Ding to carry out -experiments to determine the infectious character of blood of slight -cases of typhus compared with that of serious cases. (_NO-1197, Pros. -Ex. 472._) - -Mrugowsky ordered a series of experiments to determine whether the -course of typhus could be tempered by intravenous or intramuscular -injection of typhus vaccine. Of the 25 experimental subjects used, 19 -died. This experiment was carried out between 11 November and 22 -December 1944. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._) - - * * * * * - -_Experiments with Old Blood Plasma and the Production of Blood Plasma and - the Typhus Serum_ - -Experiments with old blood plasma were conducted on inmates in -Buchenwald by order of Mrugowsky at the request of the Military Medical -Academy. Blood transfusions were carried out in order to determine -whether old blood plasma could be used without danger, especially -without danger of shock. Several series of experiments were performed, -each with 10 to 20 experimental subjects. Some of the victims died, -probably due to the combined effect of shock and poor physical -condition. Mrugowsky received reports on these experiments. (_Tr. pp. -1190-1192_; _NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_.) - -The entries for 26 May and 13 October 1944 in the Ding diary show that -blood was withdrawn from inmates recovering from typhus for the purpose -of making a typhus convalescent serum. The witness Kogon testified that -this work was done by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ellenbeck on order from -Mrugowsky. Ellenbeck obtained the blood from typhus convalescents in -Block 46 from the summer of 1944 until the spring of 1945. Blood was -taken from these experimental subjects regularly, usually in amounts -between 250 and 350 cubic centimeters. Taking the blood from the -convalescent patients meant an extraordinary burden on them and a number -died. While the precise cause of death could not be definitely -ascertained under the circumstances, there is no doubt that the -withdrawal of blood was a contributing factor. (_Tr. pp. 1192, 1193._) - -Kogon further testified that Ellenbeck, on orders from Mrugowsky, -systematically selected invalids and old persons, especially Frenchmen, -who were in the so-called “little camp” of Buchenwald, for the purpose -of withdrawing blood to be used in making blood plasma. The horrible -conditions in the “little camp” were vividly described. The blood was -demanded from the victims and was taken from them. Sometimes extra food -was given to these starving patients. (_Tr. pp. 1194-1196._) Upon being -asked whether any of these blood donors in the “little camp” in -Buchenwald died from this blood-letting, Kogon replied: - - “The question shows that it is very difficult to gain a real - concept of the ‘little camp’ at Buchenwald. The people died - there in masses. During the night corpses were lying in the - blocks naked because they were thrown out of the bunks by the - other prisoners so that they would have a little more space. - Even the smallest pieces of clothing were torn off by those who - wanted to survive. It is impossible to determine if anybody died - as the direct and immediate result of the taking of blood, - because many people fell and died while walking around in the - ‘little camp’. - - “But it is beyond doubt to anyone who knew the conditions there, - that the taking of blood—even if a small measure of strength - was given to these people as far as food was concerned—was a - considerable contributing factor in the death of very many of - them.” (_Tr. p. 1196._) - -Ellenbeck also conducted research concerning the oxygen content of the -blood of human beings in various stages of exhaustion and artificially -produced starvation oedema. Mrugowsky gave his approval to these -experiments. (_Tr. pp. 1257-1266._) - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST - DEFENDANT SCHROEDER_ - - * * * * * - - _Typhus and Other Vaccine Experiments in the Natzweiler Concentration - Camp_ - -The appearance of Haagen as a defense witness requires consideration of -his testimony on these experiments. - -Haagen testified that in the summer of 1943 the defendant Rose, as -consulting hygienist to the Chief of the Medical Service of the -Luftwaffe, prevailed upon him to resume active status as consulting -hygienist to the Air Fleet Physician Reich. Haagen also accepted a -typhus research commission from the Luftwaffe and as a result of this -commission and his position in the Luftwaffe, he carried out certain -typhus experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9564, 9565._) - -Haagen stated that Stabsarzt Graefe was assigned to him at the Hygiene -Institute of the University of Strasbourg in 1942 by the Luftwaffe and -that Graefe acted as his assistant. Graefe was militarily subordinated -to Luftgau Physician 7 but technically subordinated to Haagen. (_Tr. p. -9582._) Haagen was also militarily subordinated to Luftgau Physician 7. -(_Tr. p. 9563._) - -Haagen had developed a murine typhus (rat typhus) vaccine which -contained an attentuated virulent (living) virus. (_Tr. pp. 9596, -9597._) Haagen testified that he performed compatability tests with this -vaccine on 28 inmates of Schirmeck concentration camp, which was a -sub-camp of Natzweiler. Eight inmates were vaccinated with .5 cc. of -this virulent vaccine, ten with .5 cc. [of virulent vaccine], and ten -with a dead vaccine plus .5 cc. of the virulent vaccine. Three -additional inmates were vaccinated with a dead vaccine for purposes of -comparison. He stated that no serious reactions occurred as a result of -these vaccines. (_Tr. p. 9603._) All of these vaccinations were carried -out in the month of May 1943 and no vaccinations occurred after that -date, according to Haagen. (_Tr. p. 9636._) In the fall of 1943 Haagen -transferred his activities to Natzweiler on the alleged ground that he -felt a typhus epidemic was more likely there than in Schirmeck. (_Tr. p. -9603._) He requested through Hirt that 100 concentration camp inmates be -put at his disposal in Natzweiler for purposes of these experiments. -These inmates were transferred from Auschwitz to Natzweiler during the -month of November 1943, 18 of whom died on the way. Haagen found the -remainder unsuitable for his purposes and requested an additional 100 -which were made available during December 1943. He testified that of -these, 40 inmates were subjected to a series of two vaccinations by -injection to bring about immunity and a third vaccination by -scarification to test the immunity. For purposes of comparison, a second -group of 40 inmates designated as “controls” was given only the third -scarification vaccination. The same vaccine was used for all of these -alleged vaccinations and was a new vaccine containing an attenuated -virulent Rickettsia-Prowazeki virus (louse typhus). The scarification -vaccine applied to both groups of subjects contained a smaller quantity -of vaccine than the first two injection vaccinations given to the group -immunized. In the first group the injected vaccine produced what Haagen -described as the normal vaccine reaction. Substantially the same -reaction occurred in the control group which received only the third -scarification vaccine. The reaction was no more serious than in those -who were vaccinated by injection. (_Tr. pp. 9615-7._) - -Haagen admitted that the subjects used by him both in Schirmeck and -Natzweiler were of many different nationalities, among whom were gypsies -and Poles. (_Tr. p. 9607._) He further testified that these inmates were -not volunteers because, as he said, he was only carrying out protective -vaccinations. (_Tr. pp. 9541-2._) - -Haagen stated that the only reason he performed these vaccinations in -Schirmeck and Natzweiler was because he was asked to do so by Kramer, -camp commandant in Natzweiler. He and Kramer were disturbed about the -possibility of a typhus epidemic in the middle of 1943, although he -testified that in fact no typhus cases actually occurred until March -1944. (_Tr. pp. 9594-5._) He went to Schmireck only because he and -Kramer feared an epidemic. (_Tr. p. 9600._) - -Haagen’s testimony, as outlined above, is completely incredible on its -face as well as in view of the documents which were submitted by the -prosecution and available to Haagen at the time he testified. Firstly, -it is utterly ridiculous to credit his statement that he went to -Schirmeck and Natzweiler only because he feared an epidemic. It is -ridiculous to suppose that a concentration camp commander, on his own -initiative, sought medical assistance from doctors in the towns -surrounding a concentration camp. The WVHA, to which all concentration -camps were subordinated, had a very elaborate medical system and it is -unthinkable that a local camp commander would ask aid from an outsider. -Secondly, it is ridiculous to suppose that Haagen, out of the kindness -of his heart and the fear of an epidemic spreading beyond the confines -of the camp, would use his precious typhus vaccine to protect the -miserable wretches who were imprisoned in the concentration camps. -Haagen himself stated that he had very little typhus vaccine. (_Tr. p. -9613._) It has been repeatedly testified to during the course of this -trial that typhus vaccines were critically short in Germany during the -war and that there were not even sufficient quantities to vaccinate -doctors, nurses, and other personnel exposed to special danger. That -this vaccine would be used to protect concentration camp inmates is -unthinkable. Thirdly, it is ridiculous to suppose that any scientist -could have possibly thought that vaccinating 28 inmates in Schirmeck and -80 in Natzweiler could have had any possible effect on the likelihood of -a typhus epidemic. - -That Haagen perjured himself with respect to what he was really doing in -Natzweiler during the course of his typhus experiments is clearly -evident from his own letter of 27 June 1944 to Hirt. In a letter of 9 -May 1944 to Hirt, Haagen requested that an additional 200 persons be -furnished to him for his experiments. (_NO-123, Pros. Ex. 303._) -Supplementary to this request, he stated in his letter of 27 June 1944 -that, “in the subsequent inoculations with virulent typhus which are to -be made for the purpose of testing the protective vaccine, one must -count on sickness particularly in the control group which has not -received the protective vaccines. These after-inoculations are desirable -in order to establish unequivocally the effectiveness of the protective -vaccines. This time 150 persons will be used for the protective vaccine -and 50 for the control inoculations.” (_NO-127, Pros. Ex. 306._) - -It should be noted specifically that in the letter quoted above, Haagen -pointed out to Hirt that sickness was to be expected in the control -group which had not received the protective vaccine. Haagen testified -that this additional group of 200 inmates requested by him was merely -for the purpose of vaccination, just as he had done in December 1943 and -January 1944 on the 80 experimental subjects. He added that in May he -had enough vaccine for 200 more persons and he was merely trying to -increase the protection in the camp. (_Tr. p. 9613._) The falsity of -Haagen’s testimony is clearly apparent from the statement in the letter -that sickness was expected in the _control group_. He had previously -testified that there was no reason whatever to expect any more serious -reaction to the scarification vaccination in the control group than to -the injected vaccine in the immunized group. (_Tr. p. 9618._) Indeed, -there was every reason to expect that the vaccine injected in the -immunized group would bring about a more serious reaction since more -vaccine was given by injection than by scarification. Haagen applied a -much larger quantity of the vaccine in the first two injections of the -immunized group than in the scarification vaccination of both the -immunized and the control group. The same vaccine was used throughout. -(_Tr. p. 9710._) The method of vaccination, whether by injection or -scarification, has no effect on reaction to the vaccine. Haagen -specifically testified that “if we vaccinate by scarification we can -expect that the effect of the vaccine will be the same as if we inject -subcutaneously or intramuscularly.” (_Tr. p. 9710._) - -Haagen was quite unable to reconcile his statement in his letter to Hirt -of 27 June 1944 that “one must count on sickness, particularly in the -control group” with his testimony that there was no difference in the -reaction to the vaccine as between the immunized and control groups. -Indeed, the only possible interpretation of his letter is that instead -of vaccinating the immunized and control groups by scarification, he, in -fact, infected them with typhus. Haagen knew that the unprotected -control subjects would become ill with typhus. Haagen also had no -explanation for the letter of Kahnt, Chief of Staff to Schroeder, of 29 -August 1944, in which he was asked “whether it may be assumed that the -typhus epidemic prevailing at Natzweiler at present is connected with -the vaccine research.” (_NO-131, Pros. Ex. 309._) He testified that he -had completed his vaccinations of the 80 experimental subjects during -January 1944 and that all of his serological examinations were finished -no later than February 1944 and that the experimental subjects were -released from confinement. Haagen submitted a report to the Luftwaffe no -later than May or June 1944 to the effect that the vaccine had been a -success. (_Tr. pp. 9627-9._) There was no reason whatever for Kahnt and -Rose to address such an inquiry to Haagen when he had long since -completed his experiments, according to his testimony, and submitted a -success report to the Luftwaffe at least two months before the inquiry. -It is quite impossible that vaccine tests which caused no typhus in the -vaccinated persons could cause typhus in other persons, as suggested by -Rose during his examination. Moreover, it should be noted that Kahnt’s -letter clearly indicated an understanding on his part that Haagen’s -vaccine research in Natzweiler was contemporaneous with the epidemic. -This, Haagen testified, he could not understand. Haagen also had -considerable difficulty explaining why, in his letter of 19 September -1944, in reply to Kahnt’s inquiry, he didn’t state that he had conducted -no vaccinations or experiments in Natzweiler since January 1944 and that -his vaccinations had caused no illness in the subjects, let alone caused -a typhus epidemic. Haagen simply stated in his letter that, “We hereby -inform you that no connection existed between the cases of typhus in -Natzweiler and the examinations dealing with typhus vaccine _that is to -be tested_.” [Emphasis added.] (_NO-132, Pros. Ex. 310._) Indeed, Haagen -himself stated in his reply that the vaccine was still under test, -contrary to his testimony before this Tribunal. - -Haagen would have the Tribunal believe that he had no typhus virus -strain which was pathogenic to human beings, that he could not have -brought on a serious case of typhus even had he tried to do so. (_Tr. -pp. 9608, 9612._) In the very same breath he testified “that there was -considerable danger of infection in working about the laboratory and -that he gave his assistants a “risk bonus.” (_Tr. p. 9608._) - -Haagen testified that he performed no vaccinations after January 1944. -He reiterated this time and again during the course of his examination. -(_Tr. pp. 9614-5._) When asked his reason for not vaccinating during the -typhus epidemic in Natzweiler in the spring and summer of 1944, which -offered an opportunity to test the anti-infectious effect of his vaccine -under natural conditions, he lamely answered that he had to make so many -official military trips that he had no time. (_Tr. p. 9614._) Although -he had sufficient vaccine to justify his asking for 200 additional -experimental victims in May 1944, his only effort in the typhus -epidemic, according to his testimony, was to send them decontamination -equipment. (_Tr. p. 9614._) It is not readily apparent, to say the least -of it, just why some other doctor or an assistant of Haagen could not -have performed the vaccinations which Haagen would have the Tribunal -believe he was so anxious to have done for the protection of the camp. - -All of the above contradictions and falsifications appear upon the face -of Haagen’s testimony as well as from the documents which he had so -carefully studied before his appearance. The documents submitted to him -during cross-examination reveal his testimony to have been perjurious -from start to finish. Haagen repeatedly testified that he carried out no -vaccinations in Schirmeck after May 1943. He stated that in Schirmeck he -only performed a single vaccination and not the series of vaccinations -to test “anti-infectious immunity” because at that time his “knowledge -hadn’t progressed so far.” (_Tr. p. 9636._) In connection with the Ipsen -vaccine, about which Rose had corresponded with him, he especially -denied that he ever proposed to Rose that experiments be carried out -with it. Haagen’s letter to Rose of 4 October 1943 squarely contradicts -him on both of these significant points. (_NO-2874, Pros. Ex. 520._) He -stated in his letter that: - - “I already reported to you the numeral results of experiments on - human beings. _The serum titer is considerably higher, also - after a single vaccination, in comparison with three - vaccinations with deactivated vaccines._ I regret that it was - not possible so far to perform infectious experiments on the - vaccinated persons; I requested the Ahnenerbe of the SS to - provide suitable persons for vaccination, but have not received - an answer yet. _We are now performing a further vaccination of - human beings_; I shall report later about the result. I guess we - will then have reached the point of being able to recommend the - introduction of our new vaccine for the time being without - infectious experiments.” [Emphasis added.] - - * * * * * - -In this same letter of 4 October 1943, Haagen discussed Rose’s report -concerning the Ipsen vaccine from Copenhagen. He concluded his letter by -stating: “If we can get experimental subjects from the SS for test -vaccinations, it would be an opportunity to test the liver vaccine as -well on its anti-infectious effect. I would then suggest that our -material be used parallel with the Ipsen tests.” Thus, Haagen testified -falsely when he said that he did not propose experiments with Ipsen -vaccine. In his letter he very specifically proposed performing -anti-infectious experiments with the Ipsen vaccine as well as his own -vaccine. This again proves that the use of the phrase “infectious -experiments” could not possibly mean multiple vaccinations with living -typhus vaccine. The Ipsen vaccine was a dead vaccine; it contained no -attenuated virulent virus. Three vaccinations with a dead vaccine could -not be designated an “infectious experiment” even by Haagen. (_Tr. p. -9655._) Moreover the defense’s own proof shows that the Ipsen vaccine -had already been tested for tolerability and found comparable with other -vaccines used by the Wehrmacht. This is clear from Rose’s letter to the -Behring-Works and Haagen, among others, dated 29 September 1943. (_Rose -88, Rose Ex. 21._) It is quite clear that the only type of experiment -left open for the Ipsen vaccine was precisely the kind that Haagen -proposed, namely, after-infection of the vaccinated and control subjects -with typhus. - -Haagen was further impeached by the notes kept on his typhus experiments -by his assistant, Miss Crodel. (_NO-3852, Pros. Ex. 521._) Haagen -definitely identified these notes as having been written by Miss Crodel. -(_Tr. p. 9691._) Miss Crodel had been an assistant of Haagen’s for many -years and he found her most reliable. (_Tr. p. 9701._) He conceded that -Miss Crodel was very careful in her work. (_Tr. p. 9697._) On page three -of the notebook appears a series of entries dating from 30 April 1943 to -27 January 1944 concerning a series of experiments in Schirmeck. The -entry for 19 May 1943 shows that two out of four mice injected with his -vaccine died. The entry for 26 May reads: “(4 weeks) 3-6, 0.5 _per -person_ and 6 mice 0.5 i. p., 5 dead, after 10, 14, 14 days, the rest -after 4 weeks.” This entry proves that on that date human beings were -inoculated with Haagen’s vaccine. To say the least of this entry, five -mice who were similarly vaccinated died as a result. The phrase “the -rest after 4 weeks” can obviously refer also to deaths among -experimental persons since it is quite impossible that this phrase could -be used to refer to the one remaining mouse. The entry for 6 July -indicates that on that date Haagen and his assistants appeared in -Schirmeck for the purpose of withdrawing blood from ten persons, who had -been previously vaccinated, for a Weil-Felix reaction test. The entry -gives the serum titer value of eight of the experimental subjects. The -entry is ended with the laconic note, “the other two were not here -anymore.” This entry is conclusive corroboration of the testimony of the -witness, George Hirtz, who stated that Haagen had tested his vaccine at -Schirmeck in the summer of 1943. Approximately 20 Polish inmates were -used in these experiments and, following the inoculations, two of the -experimental subjects died. Hirtz testified that he himself sewed up the -bodies of the inmates in paper bags and delivered them for cremation. -The other experimental subjects had reactions such as high fevers, -shock, and impairment of speech. (_Tr. pp. 1293-1299._) His testimony is -further corroborated by Haagen himself, who stated that two groups of -ten inmates were inoculated by him in Schirmeck. The entry in the Crodel -notes obviously has reference to one of these groups of ten, and upon -arrival of Haagen and his assistants in the camp for the purpose of -withdrawing blood, it was found that two of the subjects had died. - -The entry for 4 October 1943 on page three of the Crodel notes reads -“(six months) inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck, Tube—2 cc. distilled -water, 0.5 per person.” (_NO-3852, Pros. Ex. 521._) This proves not only -that Haagen testified falsely when he stated that he carried out no -typhus vaccinations in Schirmeck after May 1943 but also that multiple -vaccinations with his vaccine were performed. This entry bears the same -date as Haagen’s letter to Rose, referred to above, which also stated -that he was performing further vaccinations. The last entry on page -three is dated on the original as 27 January 1943 and reads: “(9 months) -mixed with the same amounts (as 21 May) distilled water tube, 20 persons -1.1 cc. each.” The date 1943 is obviously a mistake on the part of Miss -Crodel in making the entry. This is proved by the fact that the period -of time indicated in parentheses in the notes refers to the period of -time the vaccine had been stored. Haagen so admitted. (_Tr. p. 9711._) -Thus the reference “(9 months)” means that the vaccine being used in -that series of experiments had been stored for nine months since 30 -April 1943, the date of the first entry on page three and the time the -vaccine was first prepared. That 1943 in the original entry should -really be 1944 also is apparent from page four of the notes wherein the -last entry is for 27 January 1944. It is a common mistake for one to use -the date of the old year during the first month of the new year. - -Haagen inoculated another group of ten persons in Schirmeck on 10 -October 1943 and 20 more on 27 January 1944 as seen from the entries on -page four of the Crodel notes. Again on page five of the original, the -entry for 14 October 1943 proves that ten persons were inoculated _for -the third time_ with 1.0 cc. of Haagen’s new vaccine. That this entry -refers to the virulent murine vaccine and not to the Gildemeister dead -vaccine can be seen from the preceding entry which speaks of four -control persons being inoculated three times with Gildemeister vaccine. -This fact is further apparent by comparing the quantity of the -injections plus the amount of distilled water used per tube of Haagen’s -new vaccine as set forth in other entries. - -The entry for 25 May 1944 on page 7 of the Crodel notes states that 30 -persons were inoculated in Natzweiler. “The inoculation took place -during the incubation period (in a transport containing also sick -people). Thirteen became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June, of -these, two died.” Haagen had repeatedly testified that he performed no -vaccinations after January 1944 in Natzweiler. Not only did he perform -experiments after January 1944, but as proved by the entry quoted above, -subjects died during the course of such experiments. By his own -testimony Haagen proves that these entries deal with an experiment -during which the subjects were artificially infected with typhus. -Although the entry euphoniously states that the vaccinations “took place -during the incubation period,” Haagen testified, as had been repeatedly -suggested by the prosecution, that it is impossible to know when persons -are in the incubation period. The incubation period is that time between -the infection and the first manifestations of the disease. Accordingly, -it is impossible to know that a vaccination takes place during the -incubation period unless the person has been artificially infected so -that the date of infection is known. (_Tr. pp. 9701-2._) - -It is significant to note also that the chart on page 14 of Miss -Crodel’s notes uses the word “nachimpfung,” meaning after-vaccination or -re-inoculation, in connection with multiple vaccination experiments on -two mice (both of which incidentally died), rather than the word -“nachinfektion,” meaning after-infection or subsequent infection, which -was repeatedly used by Haagen in his letters concerning experiments on -human beings. - -Haagen testified that the defendant Schroeder visited him on 25 May -1944, the very day on which he was carrying out experiments in -Natzweiler. (_Tr. p. 9632._) While it is, of course, entirely possible -that Schroeder may have visited Haagen on 24 or 26 May, rather than on -25, the fact is quite clear that in any event Haagen’s very important -experiments on typhus were discussed with Schroeder, contrary to the -testimony of both men. The same is true with respect to the visit of the -defendant Becker-Freyseng which took place shortly after that of -Schroeder (_Tr. p. 9569_) and of Rose who visited Haagen both in 1943 -and 1944. (_Tr. p. 9570._) Haagen’s statement that Becker-Freyseng came -all the way from Berlin to discuss with him the procurement of rabbits -and mice is as incredible as the rest of Haagen’s testimony. - -The defendant Schroeder testified that Haagen’s research assignment was -not secret and attempted to argue on that basis that nothing criminal -could have happened. (_Tr. p. 3654._) Without pausing to point out the -stupidity of such an argument, suffice it to say that Schroeder’s -testimony was proved to be false by a list of research assignments -issued by Schroeder’s office in 1944. Haagen’s typhus work was -classified secret. (_NO-934, Pros. Ex. 458._) - -The testimony of the witness Nales corroborates the proof outlined -herein above: That Haagen performed experiments to test the immunity of -his vaccine by artificially infecting the subjects with typhus. Nales, a -Dutch citizen, was arrested by the Gestapo in 1940 for allegedly -participating in a resistance movement. Although he was tried and -acquitted, he was committed to Buchenwald concentration camp in April -1941. In March 1942 he was transferred to Natzweiler and in November -1942 he became a nurse in the Ahnenerbe experimental station there. -(_Tr. pp. 10409-12._) He stated that in the latter part of 1943, 100 -gypsies were sent to Natzweiler from Auschwitz for Haagen’s typhus -experiments. Haagen found them physically unsuitable and thereafter an -additional 90 gypsies were shipped in. These were divided into two -groups and confined in separate rooms in the Ahnenerbe experimental -station. One group was vaccinated against typhus. Approximately 14 days -later, both groups were artificially infected with typhus. As a result, -about 30 of the subjects died. Nales nursed the victims himself and saw -the bodies. He talked to the subjects frequently and knows they did not -volunteer, as indeed Haagen himself admitted on the stand. The gypsies -were of various nationalities including Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and -Germans. (_Tr. pp. 10419-23._) - - * * * * * - -Haagen’s long continued activity in Schirmeck and Natzweiler can be -clearly seen from his account book on research tasks on yellow fever and -typhus. His work in Schirmeck began as early as 20 April 1943. He was -placing telephone calls to Schirmeck late in August 1944, over a year -after Haagen’s alleged “last vaccination” there. These accounts were -charged to the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. (_NO-3837, Pros. Ex. -542._) They were in such detail as to reveal on their face his activity -in the concentration camps. (_NO-3450, Pros. Ex. 519._) - -Haagen admitted that by infection experiments one could mean only one of -three things—(1) subsequent artificial infection with typhus, (2) -vaccinations of large groups of people and then studying efficacy during -a natural epidemic, and (3) Weil-Felix reaction tests carried out before -and after a subsequent vaccination. (_Tr. p. 9601._) He admitted that -the prosecution’s interpretation of “infection experiments” and -“subsequent infection” was equally consistent with his own. (_Tr. p. -9611._) He admitted that the word “nachimpfung” (subsequent vaccination) -could have been used as well as “nachinfektion” (subsequent infection). -(_Tr. p. 9611._) - -There are no refined questions of documentary interpretation presented -to the Tribunal. The simple issue is whether Haagen committed crimes -during the course of his experiments. There is no dispute that these -were “experiments”. Haagen repeatedly used the word in his own letters. -There is no dispute that the inmates used as subjects were -nonvolunteers, among whom were nationals of German occupied countries. -Haagen admitted as much. The documents and the testimony prove that a -substantial number of subjects were killed during the course of these -experiments. Against this overwhelming proof stands the testimony of -Haagen and Rose, both of whom perjured themselves repeatedly on the -stand. Indeed, their own testimony is the best circumstantial proof as -to the criminality of the experiments. One does not gratuitously testify -falsely. Those who fear the light of truth commit perjury. These men -regard their oaths as lightly as they did the lives of their helpless -victims. - -The guilt of Rose and Haagen is the measure of the guilt of Schroeder. -As a medical officer of the Luftwaffe, Haagen was subject to his orders. -(_Tr. p. 3636._) The office of Schroeder issued the research assignments -pursuant to which these experiments were carried out. It provided the -funds with which to carry them out. It received reports on the -experiments and knew they were performed on concentration camp inmates. -(_Tr. p. 1758._) Schroeder was himself in Strasbourg at the very time -the experiments were going on. His guilt is clear and unequivocal. - - c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT - ROSE_ - - _Statements Regarding the Question of Responsibility of the - Defendant Rose for the Typhus Experiments of Professor Eugen - Haagen in the Concentration Camps at Schirmeck and Natzweiler - and the Question of the Participation in These Experiments_ - -In order to reach a decision on the question of whether punishable -behavior on the part of the defendant Rose is established, the Tribunal -will have to examine the following: Did Professor Rose, in his capacity -as consulting hygienist with the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, have -any commanding authority or the right and obligation of supervision at -all over Professor Eugen Haagen at the University of Strasbourg? Did the -defendant Rose participate in a penally relevant form in the experiments -with typhus vaccine conducted by Haagen in the concentration camps at -Natzweiler and Schirmeck? If so, the question of whether Haagen made -himself liable to punishment or not can be left completely undecided. - -As far as the first question is concerned, one thing is certain. Above -all, Professor Haagen was a full professor at the University of -Strasbourg at the time and also director of the Institute for Hygiene at -this University. At the same time he was consultant on hygiene for the -civil administration of Alsace. (_German Tr. p. 9526._) During the war, -in addition to this, he was a part-time consulting, hygienist with an -Air Fleet. Finally, he applied for so-called research assignments for -his experiments, including his typhus experiments, that is, in practice, -financial aid. - -First of all, it must be ascertained in which of his many capacities -Professor Haagen conducted his experiments. In this connection the facts -are perfectly clear. As a witness, Professor Haagen himself explained -that he requested and received the research assignments which made -possible his experiments, not as an officer of the Luftwaffe, but as -director of a civilian research institute. As usual, therefore, the -initiative was taken by the scientist. (_Becker-Freyseng 70, -Becker-Freyseng Ex. 48; Tr. pp. 6251-3_; _German Tr. pp. 7941-2, 8399, -9583-5_.) The correctness of this description can be seen from the -letter of Professor Haagen, submitted by the prosecution, addressed to -the rector of the University of Strasbourg, dated 7 October 1943. -(_NO-137, Pros. Ex. 189._) In this letter Haagen requests his _civilian_ -superior, the rector of the University of Strasbourg, for special -privileges for the Institute for Hygiene of the University (i. e., a -civilian institution) based on the research commissions assigned to him. - -The fact that the position of Professor Haagen was also interpreted by -the Luftwaffe in this manner can be seen, for example, from the style of -the letters addressed to him in matters relevant to his research and -vaccine production assignments. They are not clothed in the manner of -military orders, but possess the character of correspondence with a -civilian office which was not subordinate to the Luftwaffe, either in -the matter of receiving orders or of being under its supervision. A -number of those invested with such research assignments have described -to the Tribunal how they accepted these assignments for opportunistic -reasons, e. g., to obtain priority grading and to protect their -personnel from being drafted to military service. However, the fact that -no subordinate relationship or supervisory right arose through the -acceptance of such an assignment, can be seen likewise from the numerous -statements of the recipients of such Luftwaffe assignments. (_Schroeder -30, Schroeder Ex. 22_; _Schroeder 31, Schroeder Ex. 23_; -_Becker-Freyseng 79, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 63_; _German Tr. p. 6720_.) -Obligations arose solely with regard to the computation of the money -allowed, the reporting of any possible results achieved, as well as the -mention of assistance in the event of a scientific publication. - -Moreover, such financial aid is in no way limited to Germany but is -common in many countries. No responsibility for possible errors and -crimes, which the recipients might commit, can result from such -financial assistance. As a matter of fact, Haagen never received a -special individual assignment to carry out a certain series of -experiments, but he was accorded, as per request, assistance for “typhus -research.” However, financial assistance for typhus research is -something quite normal. Incidentally, Haagen not only utilized the means -put at his disposal by the Luftwaffe, but also contributions from the -Reich Research Council and, most important, the personnel and equipment -of his institute. Therefore, his typhus research was not a part of his -military activities but was carried out within the scope of his civilian -activities. Also, the fact that a reserve officer of the Luftwaffe, -namely, Staff Physician [Stabsarzt] Graefe, appears as a collaborator in -his typhus research work, alters none of the facts of the case. It is -true that Graefe was a reserve officer in the same way as Haagen. -However, his main profession was that of assistant in the Institute for -Hygiene of the University of Strasbourg, and in this capacity he was -subordinate to Professor Haagen who was, of course, the director of this -institute. He was in no way subordinate to Haagen in the military sense, -but to the Air Force Area VII. (_German Tr. p. 9718._) Staff Physician -Graefe, who was drafted into the Luftwaffe, was transferred, therefore, -for purposes of further training, to the civilian institute where he -worked as an assistant in peacetime. Such incidents occurred quite -frequently in order to enable research activities in civilian institutes -to be continued in wartime. As a result of this assistance given in -respect of personnel, these civilian offices did not fall under the -command and supervision of the military authorities. - -The fact that Professor Haagen felt himself to be completely independent -in his research activities can also be seen unequivocally from the fact -that he procured further assistance from other offices disregarding his -subordinate position with respect to the military. This means, without -going through the military channels which were prescribed as binding in -military matters. In his capacity as Oberstabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, he -could not deal with the Reich Research Council without informing his -superior thereof. Even less could he deal with the Reich Leader SS, with -other offices of the SS, or, for example, with the Generalarzt -Schreiber, who belonged to the army. He was, however, well able to do -all of this in his capacity as director of the Institute for Hygiene of -the University of Strasbourg. The correctness of this statement is shown -most clearly in the important point, namely the procurement of -experimental subjects in the concentration camps. In this case he did -not conduct negotiations through military channels via the Medical -Inspection of the Luftwaffe, but through his civilian channels, through -the mediation of his university colleague, Professor Hirt, via the -Ahnenerbe. He never informed his military superiors of these -negotiations nor asked for their assistance therein, for as matters -were, there was no reason to do so. The files show quite clearly that -Professor Haagen had already conducted his experiments on prisoners in -Schirmeck in May of 1943 in the same way as he continued them until the -middle of 1944. In May of 1943, however, Haagen was—in a military -sense—on leave of absence, and as far as his activities were concerned -he was in no way subject to the supervision of the Luftwaffe. His -appointment as consulting hygienist did not ensue until after 14 July -1943, because the letter from the Reich Minister of the Luftwaffe dated -14 July 1943 was not addressed to Consulting Hygienist Haagen, but to -Staff Physician [Stabsarzt] Haagen, who had been given leave to work in -his institute. (_NO-297, Pros. Ex. 316._) After his appointment as -consulting hygienist, however, his research activities do not differ in -any way from those which he performed before this appointment. They -remained civilian research activities as formerly. - -Further attention should be called to the fact that the Luftwaffe showed -no special interest in Professor Haagen’s research work. The only real -interest of the Luftwaffe might have been in the actual production of -vaccine. They tried to influence him in this connection, but without -practical success. The Luftwaffe received no typhus vaccine from Haagen. -His research activities had no connection with the wishes of the -Luftwaffe regarding production; they were even in conflict with these -interests. - -The prosecution, it is true, has submitted a number of accounts from -which it can be seen that telephone calls to Schirmeck and Natzweiler -were paid for from Luftwaffe funds. (_NO-3450, Pros. Ex. 519_; _NO-3837, -Pros. Ex. 542_.) Even if one were to consider the fact proved that these -calls were in connection with his work in concentration camps, the whole -nature of the accounts shows that Haagen treated his research work as a -unit and divided the costs according to his own point of view among the -different funds which had been placed at his disposal. The purpose -served by the telephone calls cannot be inferred from the accounts -alone. The arbitrary division of costs can be seen, for example, from -the fact that a whole series of expenditures entered under “Influenza -Account” referred to his typhus work. The department receiving the -expense sheets had no possibility of checking in detail the purpose to -which each enumerated item was put, and who the participants in the -telephone conversations were. - -Sufficient facts have already been produced to show that, in general, -the Luftwaffe bore no responsibility for the research activities of the -University Professor Haagen. Nevertheless, it is proposed to examine the -question of whether a responsibility on the part of the defendant Rose -for Haagen’s research work can be deduced from the fact that Professor -Rose was consulting hygienist with the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe; -because the prosecution is mainly attempting to construe responsibility -on the part of the defendant Rose from (1) the existence of the research -assignments given by the Luftwaffe; and (2) the fact that Professor -Haagen belonged to the Luftwaffe as a reserve officer. - -There can be no doubt that Haagen was the medical officer of the -Luftwaffe. First of all, he was consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet -1 until the year 1941. Then he was given leave to work in his Institute -for Hygiene until a certain time, which must have been shortly after 14 -July 1943. Then he became consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet -“Mitte” which was later renamed Air Fleet “Reich”. - -However, he did not conduct his experiments in his capacity as -consulting hygienist. The tasks of a consultant did not include -scientific research. They lay in other fields. Professor Haagen was -never subordinate to the defendant Rose even in this military position -as consulting hygienist of an Air Fleet. On the other hand, the -defendant Rose had neither commanding authority, and neither the right -nor the duty of supervision as far as Haagen was concerned. - -From a military standpoint Haagen was subordinate to his air fleet -physician in every respect. Incidentally, the defendant Rose had no -superior rights nor supervisory obligations either with respect to -Professor Haagen or to all the other consulting hygienists of the -Luftwaffe. His official duties were exclusively limited to consultations -with the Medical Inspector, that is, the Chief of the Medical Service of -the Luftwaffe. (_Compare Rose 6, Rose Ex. 6_; _Rose 7, Rose Ex. 7_; -_Rose 8, Rose Ex. 29_; _Handloser 12, Handloser Ex. 12_; _Tr. pp. 2987, -6259_; _German Tr. p. 3346_.) - -There is no need to comment further on the fact that the defendant Rose -particularly did not possess such rights and obligations with respect to -Haagen in his capacity as a research scientist and director of the -institute of the University of Strasbourg, which was in no way -subordinate to the Luftwaffe. The correctness of these statements was -unequivocally confirmed on the witness stand during my examination, not -only by Professor Haagen himself (_German Tr. pp. 9679-80_) but also by -the defendant Schroeder, who, after all, should know, having been the -former Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. (_German Tr. p. -3734._) These facts should be sufficient to show that the defendant Rose -had neither the power of command and neither the right nor obligation of -supervision over Professor Haagen. - -We still have to examine the second question of the possible -participation of the defendant Rose in Professor Haagen’s research work -in the concentration camps at Natzweiler and Schirmeck. - -It is incontestable that the defendant Rose was cognizant of the fact -that the Luftwaffe gave several research assignments to Professor -Haagen, and that the reports issued by Haagen within the framework of -these assignments were sent to him for his information. However, these -reports never contained details from which a criminal activity on the -part of Professor Haagen could have been inferred or assumed. Even the -prosecutor, Mr. McHaney, during his interrogation of the defendant -Rostock, expressly declared that even he doubted whether Haagen would -have disclosed such details. (_German Tr. p. 3346._) This interpretation -corresponds completely with the facts. Professor Haagen’s reports -consisted purely of scientific research work which was designated for -publication. No reader could gather that they were based on illegal -experiments. A plan of experiments was never submitted by Haagen in -detail. - -As has already been stated, it is true that the defendant Rose knew of -the research commissions which had been assigned to Professor Haagen by -the Luftwaffe. According to the nature of his official position, -however, he exercised no influence on the assignment of such -commissions. There were no misgivings about the assignments as such, for -nothing of a suspicious or objectionable nature could be seen from their -formulation. (_Becker-Freyseng 37, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 23._) - -This situation is not altered by the fact that the defendant Rose -visited Professor Haagen twice in Strasbourg during the course of the -war, the first time in the year 1943 and the second time in 1944. -Clearly outlined assignments were dealt with on both occasions. During -the first visit the question was discussed whether Haagen wished to -reassume in addition the functions of a consulting hygienist of an Air -Fleet. The second visit resulted from the desire of the medical -inspection of the Luftwaffe that Haagen should comply with the request -repeatedly made to him, to take up the production of vaccine. This -second visit further served the purpose of discussing the question of a -particularly expensive but necessary installation for reproducing -various climates for the rabbit hutch in Professor Haagen’s Institute. - -The reasons just mentioned for these two visits will be substantiated by -documents submitted. The question regarding Professor Haagen’s -assumption of the functions of a consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet -“Mitte” is mentioned in the letter from Rose addressed to Haagen, dated -9 June 1943, (_NO-306, Pros. Ex. 296_) the procurement of the climate -installation in Document NO-2874, Prosecution Exhibit 520. Moreover, the -first of these two documents just mentioned shows quite clearly that the -defendant Rose had no influence on the assignment of research -commissions to Haagen. In answering a question from Haagen relevant to -this matter, Rose had to limit his reply to the statement that the -competent expert was absent. - -In examining the relationship between Rose and Haagen, their further -exchange of correspondence must also be mentioned. - -Rose met Haagen when they were both division chiefs at the Robert Koch -Institute in Berlin from 1937 until 1941. Both were specialists in the -field of research into infectious diseases. Haagen specialized in virus -diseases including typhus. The defendant Rose specialized in tropical -diseases, parasitology, and vermin control. This fact explains the -existence of a scientific private correspondence, part of which can be -found in the files. According to the testimony of the witness, Olga -Eyer, this correspondence was extremely cursory and consisted of only -five to six letters from 1941 to 1944, during which time Fraeulein Eyer -was Haagen’s secretary. (_German Tr. p. 1781._) - -The prosecution is obviously in possession of the entire exchange of -correspondence between Rose and Haagen. The letters the prosecution has -submitted from this correspondence deal with two subjects: The first -group consists of the two letters of 5 June 1943 and 9 June 1943 -(_NO-305, Pros. Ex. 295_; _NO-306, Pros. Ex. 296_) which contain an -answer to the questions on the production technique of typhus vaccine. -Rose, who himself is not a specialist in this field, had requested -technical information and had received it. (In passing, it should be -stated that the 30 to 40 persons mentioned in this exchange of -correspondence signified the required manpower figure and not possible -experimental subjects, as the prosecution asserts.) (_German Tr. p. -9063._) - -The principal letter of Haagen to Rose, dated 4 June 1943, which is -mentioned in Rose’s reply dated 9 June 1943, would clear up the matter -absolutely unequivocally. Unfortunately, it has not been submitted by -the prosecution. - -The second part of the correspondence between Rose and Haagen concerns -the attitude of Haagen to the Copenhagen vaccine. Among others, Rose had -also informed Professor Haagen, one of the leading German -typhus-research scientists, about the result of his conversation with -Dr. Ipsen in Copenhagen, as can be seen from the distribution of the -report on the Copenhagen trip. (_Rose 22, Rose Ex. 21._) This second -part of the correspondence developed as a result of the transmission of -this strictly scientific information, and the following letters from it -were introduced by the prosecution during the trial: - -Letter from Haagen to Rose dated 4 October 1943 (_NO-2874, Pros. Ex. -520_). - -Letter from Haagen to Rose dated 29 November 1943 (_NO-1059, Pros. Ex. -490_). - -Letter from Rose to Haagen dated 13 December 1943 (_NO-122, Pros. Ex. -298_). - -Professor Rose furnished a detailed explanation of this exchange of -correspondence during his direct examination. At the time he was only in -possession of his aforementioned letter to Haagen dated 13 December -1943, whereas the two other letters were still withheld by the -prosecution. Although, as a result of this, he was put in the difficult -position of having to testify regarding an exchange of correspondence -which took place four years ago, only a part of which he had available -for reference, the correctness of his statements was completely -confirmed in the essential points by the two other letters which were -not introduced until later in the trial. (_Tr. p. 6281._) It can be seen -quite definitely from the first paragraph of Haagen’s letter to Rose -dated 4 October 1943 that the actual interest of the defendant Rose lay -in inducing Professor Haagen to produce a proven vaccine. - -The question hinged on the climate installation which was necessary for -the production of the Giroud vaccine from the lungs of rabbits. It was -only necessary to establish an additional production plant for the -Luftwaffe because the vaccine concerned was obtained from dead typhus -bacilli and had been introduced for some time. At the end of his letter -Professor Haagen once more refers to this purely technical question of -production. In his letter Haagen also expresses his opinion and -valuation of the Ipsen method. The penultimate paragraph of this letter -is particularly important. It describes the great importance Professor -Haagen attached to the serological experiments in weighing the results -of the vaccination and of the state of immunity. He writes in this -connection: - - “I generally regret that, in judging immunity, much too little - consideration is being given to the serological reaction. My - experiments with the nonphenolized vaccine particularly proved - again that the titer of agglutination should be considered. No - doubt, much greater importance must again be attached to the - serological result when judging the state of immunity in - accordance with our present opinion on the course of the - infection of the virus diseases, especially in their initial - stages.” (_NO-2874, Pros. Ex. 520._) - -At the end of his letter, Haagen suggests that his own vaccines and the -Ipsen vaccine be compared by examination. This is unequivocal proof of -the proposal having been made by Haagen. The defendant Rose had not the -slightest reason to assume that Professor Haagen intended to perform an -immunity check with a virulent virus causing disease in human organism, -since the Professor particularly stressed the importance of serological -methods when testing the condition of immunity. On the contrary, he had -to assume that Professor Haagen considered such an infection -superfluous. - -The prosecution objects to the fact that Haagen, when discussing the -planned experiments in his correspondence with Rose, used such terms as -“experiments of infection” and “subsequent infection.” But Professor -Rose knew that Haagen was engaged in the development of live vaccine -nonpathogenic to human beings. He even mentioned this in his lecture on -typhus and malaria at Basel in 1944. (_Rose 25, Rose Ex. 31._) Every -expert knows that the application of living virus for the purpose of -protective vaccination is a procedure of infection. - -He was aware that Haagen worked on the further development of the method -evolved by the Frenchman Blanc. This, too, can be found in the same -passage of his Basel lecture mentioned above. The fact that the term -“subsequent infection” was used by Professor Haagen in distinguishing -protective vaccinations from live and weakened vaccines could in no way -surprise or startle him. (_Rose 69, Rose Ex. 59_; _Rose 60, Rose Ex. -60_; _Tr. pp. 6295-6_; _German Tr. 9639_.) - -It must be pointed out in this connection that the notes of the -Natzweiler camp physician himself distinctly describe the vaccination -which Haagen had occasionally called “subsequent infection,” as -“vaccination”. His entries of 22 March 1944 state that “the actual -‘vaccination’ will now be carried out after two protective vaccinations -have taken place.” (_German Tr. p. 9782._) - -The report taken from the Tropical Diseases Bulletin which I introduced -in this trial shows, however, quite clearly that these infections were -not dangerous and could, in the main, be controlled. (_Rose 58, Rose Ex. -58._) - -This report states that the Blanc live typhus vaccine was used by the -French Government in Algeria in 3.5 million cases to combat typhus, and -that as a result of these protective vaccinations, real typhus illness -was found in only 5-6 cases per thousand. If one compares this figure of -5-6 per thousand with the total number of the vaccinations, it appears -that in the course of this vaccination action carried out by the French -Government, 17,500 to 21,000 cases of typhus illness took place as a -result of vaccination. This result may justly give weight to the -assumption that the French Government considered these incidents a -justifiable and tolerable risk in view of the extent of the threatened -danger. - -It would be unfair to blame the defendant Rose for having taken no steps -at all on learning that another research scientist, namely Haagen (who -was not subordinated to him) was using a method which he knew was widely -practiced. He had much less reason to do so since it was Haagen who -tried by preliminary vaccinations with dead vaccines to avoid and to -reduce the extent of the vaccination reactions and the danger of -sickness as a result of the vaccination. Haagen’s reports and -publications only deal with this object of a preliminary vaccination -with dead vaccines and of the subsequent vaccination with a live, -virulent vaccine nonpathogenic to human beings (subsequent infection). -This field, with which he was not so familiar, was described in detail -by the defendant Rose in his direct testimony. When interrogated, -Professor Haagen, as the actual originator of the plans, substantially -enlarged and in some instances corrected this description. - -It does not seem feasible to me to classify as criminal, experiments -which tend to make more bearable and less dangerous a recognized method -already applied on millions of people. - -In addition, there is no reply from the defendant Rose to this letter -from Professor Haagen of 4 October 1943. It is not certain whether he -actually received it. However, the possibility that he did receive it -cannot be denied. - -Chronologically, the next letter in this correspondence is Haagen’s -letter to Rose of 29 November 1943. (_NO-1059, Pros. Ex. 490._) The -defendant Rose cannot remember ever having received this letter. - -It is true that after this letter had been submitted to him by the -prosecution during cross-examination, Professor Rose assumed that he -must have received it, judging by the date and the conditions of the -postal service at that time. (_Tr. p. 6428._) However, he was misled -when making this statement by a mistake in the reproduction. Whereas -this letter is actually dated 29 November 1943, the date on the letter -is given as 29 November 1942 in the German mimeographed copies -distributed by the prosecution in the course of the cross-examination. -Thus it was sent at a time when large quantities of mail were destroyed -in trains or at post offices by the heavy air raids on German towns and -communications. According to the resultant state of affairs, it is -probable that he actually did not receive this letter. In this very -letter Professor Haagen mentions that 18 of the 100 inmates had already -died en route. The answers the defendant Rose gave on cross-examination -before this letter had been submitted to him show clearly that he could -not remember such information. (_Tr. p. 6424-5._) He would hardly have -been able to forget such a gruesome report if he had actually received -this letter. - -It also cannot be stated that the defendant Rose could only have written -his letter to Haagen of 13 December 1943 (_NO-122, Pros. Ex. 298_) after -having received Haagen’s letter of 29 November 1943. Prosecuting -counsel, Mr. McHaney, however, alleged this when cross-examining Rose -(_Tr. p. 6431_) thus causing confusion in the mind of the defendant -Rose. For, in reality, Rose’s letter of 13 December 1943 is the reply to -a further letter from Haagen dated 8 December 1943, as appears clearly -from the introductory sentence in Rose’s letter of 13 December 1943. -From this state of affairs it can only be concluded that either -Professor Haagen did not mail this letter at all—perhaps in view of the -information contained therein about the unfavorable conditions of health -of the inmates—or else the defendant Rose did not receive the letter -because it was destroyed along with a lot of other mail of the same date -in the heavy air raids. The prosecution, no doubt, would not have failed -to introduce this letter into evidence if the defendant Rose had replied -to Haagen’s letter dated 29 November 1943. Professor Haagen’s suggestion -in his letter of 4 October 1943 that the Copenhagen vaccine be tested, -is again dealt with in Rose’s letter of 13 December 1943. In this letter -Rose exclusively speaks of the testing of vaccine, without mentioning -infections at all. In the letter a parallel is drawn to the Buchenwald -typhus experiments only insofar as he indicated the advantage of the -simultaneous testing of several vaccines. On direct examination, that -is, prior to the submission of other documents which give greater -clarification to the whole matter, the defendant Rose stated quite -clearly and in agreement with subsequent evidence and the later -testimony of Haagen, that the point in question was the application of -the Copenhagen vaccine for preliminary vaccination, aiming at the -weakening of the vaccination reaction in connection with subsequent -vaccination with a live, avirulent vaccine nonpathogenic to human -beings. - -The two biologically parallel conditions which are obvious to every -layman, one, the weakening of a reaction following vaccination with a -live vaccine, and two, the weakening of a natural sickness, were -explained in detail by Professor Rose on direct examination. (_Tr. p. -6281._) - -Finally, it must be emphatically pointed out that the plan discussed in -this correspondence to test the effect of the Copenhagen vaccine on the -weakening of vaccination reactions followed by the application of the -new live avirulent typhus vaccine pathogenic to human beings as compared -with other vaccines, was not carried out at all. After Haagen had -succeeded in weakening the reaction in another way, namely by long -storage, he was no longer interested in the Copenhagen vaccine. -(_Becker-Freyseng 62_[58]; _German, Tr. 9614-5_.) - -Therefore, there only remains the examination of the question of whether -the defendant Rose was responsible for Haagen’s activities, knowing that -Professor Haagen had performed experiments on inmates with live -avirulent typhus vaccines still in the testing stage. Apart from the -correspondence discussed just now (part of which did not deal with -experiments at all, while the other part referred to the discussion of -an experimental plan which had been temporarily under consideration), -the defendant Rose was only informed of Haagen’s activities through the -latter’s reports which were sent to him for information and comments by -the chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, through official -channels. These, however, either contained simple information about the -fact that Professor Haagen had asked for and received a commission for -research, or else they were scientific publications containing nothing -to which objections could be made. - -The prosecution concluded from the letter of the Luftwaffe Medical -Academy, dated 7 July 1944 to the Luftlottenarzt Reich [Air Fleet -Physician Reich] that Haagen must have infected human beings with -virulent typhus bacilli which were pathogenic to human beings because -“control persons” were mentioned in this letter. (_NO-128, Pros._ _Ex. -307._) This letter approves the publication of Professor Haagen’s work -and that of his assistant Crodel: “Experiments with a New Dried Typhus -Vaccine.” This work which had been submitted to the defendant Rose prior -to publication actually shows clearly that these controls were meant to -be a comparison of the results of serological examinations on patients -from the camp epidemic with the serological examinations on persons -protectively vaccinated. Haagen, whose main interest was in serological -examinations, as already mentioned, had no reason whatsoever to perform -artificial infections since the epidemic in the concentration camp at -Natzweiler offered an abundance of persons for the purposes of -comparison. - -Finally it must be stated, in addition, that the experimental plans -discussed in Haagen’s letter of 27 June 1944 to Professor Hirt never -became known to the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate nor to Rose. -(_NO-127, Pros. Ex. 306._) Moreover, the general development of the -situation (Haagen’s absence from Strasbourg, evacuation of the camp at -Natzweiler, etc.,) shows that this planned experiment could never have -been performed. The truth of this statement is further clearly proved by -the testimonies of the witnesses Broers and Nales, according to which no -more typhus vaccinations took place after April 1944. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT - MRUGOWSKY_[59] - -The prosecution stated in its plea: If Grawitz were still alive, he -would sit here as one of the principal defendants on the defendants’ -bench. This is certainly true. But Grawitz passed sentenced on himself. -And what does the prosecution do? It indicts Mrugowsky instead of -Grawitz. It does not consider in its arguments that Mrugowsky was not a -private person but a medical officer in the Waffen SS, that is a -soldier, and that Grawitz and Himmler were his military superiors. It -speaks of conspiracy but it does not examine thereby to what extent a -conspiracy may be conceived when military subordination plays its part. -In its summing-up, both written and oral, the prosecution merely -submitted the original allegations of the indictment. It completely -ignored the evidence produced by the defendants, and merely pointed out -a little scornfully that this evidence was mostly composed of -affidavits. But this is no fault of the defendants. They would have -preferred to be able to produce counter-proof taken from their own -records. But all the documents belonging to the defendants and to other -offices, from which the prosecution evidence emanates, are in the hands -of the prosecution. It merely submitted those parts of the documents -which, torn from their context, seem to incriminate the defendants. On -the other hand, the prosecution made it impossible for the defendants to -find the records connected with the prosecution evidence which would -ensure a complete elucidation of the true facts. - -I would ask the Tribunal to consider in particular this difficult -position of the defendants with regard to evidence. It places particular -emphasis on the old legal principle that the defendant is considered not -guilty until his guilt has been proved, and in doubtful cases the Court -is to decide in favor of the defendant. - -The charges against Mrugowsky are composed of three groups: - -(1) The typhus experiments and the aconitine execution which did not -concern volunteers. In these cases the Tribunal will have to consider -whether state emergency contended by Mrugowsky really existed, and if -so, if the typhus experiments and the aconitine execution were -justified. If the answer is in the affirmative, then neither the typhus -experiments nor the aconitine execution is criminal, since there is no -objection raised as to the manner in which they were performed. If the -question is answered in the negative, then the next consideration is, if -and to what extent Mrugowsky participated in them and if he is -responsible under criminal law. - -(2) The second group consists of the actions of Ding which he performed -on his own initiative, e. g., his participation in a killing by phenol -and the poison experiment on 6 persons. - -(3) The third group consists of the protective vaccinations for which -volunteers were available, according to the evidence produced by the -prosecution. - -The defendant Mrugowsky is indicted first of all for his alleged -participation in the typhus experiments at Buchenwald and in other -medical experiments. In its submission of evidence, the prosecution -treated these experiments as criminal and as experiments performed by -doctors. During the examination of the experts, Professor Leibbrandt and -Professor Ivy, the prosecution also treated these medical experiments as -experiments performed by doctors and asked the experts if these -experiments were to be considered as admissible from the point of view -of medical ethics. - -I am convinced that the experiments on which the prosecution bases its -indictment were in no way experiments which originated from the -initiative of the executive physicians themselves. The experiments were -a form of research work necessitated by an extraordinarily pressing -state emergency, and ordered by the highest competent governmental -authorities. - -Professor Ivy also admitted that there is a fundamental difference -between the physician as a therapeutist and the physician as a -scientific research worker. When asked by Dr. Tipp: “So you admit that -to the physician as a therapeutist, the physician who cures, other rules -and, therefore, other paragraphs of the oath of Hippocrates apply,” he -gave the answer: “Yes, I do, very definitely.” - -Consequently, experiments on human beings, performed for urgent reasons -of a public character and ordered by the competent authorities of the -state, cannot simply be considered as criminal merely because the -experimental persons chosen by the state for the research work were not -volunteers. - -The prosecution ought to have brought additional evidence with regard to -the individual experiments to prove why they were criminal, apart from -the fact that the experimental persons were not volunteers. - -The largest space in the indictment against Mrugowsky is taken up by the -typhus experiments at Buchenwald. The prosecution does not contend that -Mrugowsky participated in them personally, but I further think I have -proved in my written arguments that he neither suggested nor ordered nor -controlled these experiments; that he did not further them nor even -approve of them. - -Nevertheless for precaution’s sake, I also must prove that the -experiments in question were not illegal and that under no aspect can -they be considered as criminal since they were caused by an urgent state -emergency. This proof can be produced in a particularly impressive -manner in the case of the typhus experiments. - -In the Flick trial,[60] the prosecution submitted Document NI-5222 which -I have offered to the Tribunal. (_Mrugowsky, Ex. 99._) This document, -which comes from the Labor Office Westphalia and is dated 3 February -1942, states that according to information from military quarters, until -recently the number of Soviet prisoners of war dying of typhus was still -15,000 _daily_. - -I think I need no longer emphasize that a most pressing state emergency -is considered to exist if from one single epidemic there are, I repeat, -15,000 deaths daily in the camps for Russian prisoners alone. - -On the other hand, the prosecution stated that from the beginning of -1942 until the beginning of 1945, a total of 142 persons died as a -result of the typhus experiments at Buchenwald. I place these two -figures intentionally at the beginning of my argument. They show that -during the entire period of the experiments in Buchenwald, the number of -fatalities amounted to one percent of the toll taken _every day_ by -typhus in the _Russian prisoner camps alone_ in winter 1941-42. In -addition to these victims in the Russian P. W. camps, one has to -consider the enormous number of people who died of typhus among the -civil population of the occupied eastern territories and the German -Armed Forces. - -It is clear that under these conditions drastic measures had to be -taken. When judging the typhus experiments carried out in the -concentration camp Buchenwald one must not forget that Germany was -engaged in war at the time. Millions of soldiers had to give up their -lives because they were called upon to fight by the state. The state -employed the civil population for work according to state requirements. -In doing so it made no distinction between men and women. The state -ordered employment in chemical factories which was detrimental to -health. It ordered work on the construction of new projectiles which -involved considerable danger. When unexploded enemy shells of a new type -were found at the front, or unexploded bombs of new construction were -found after an air raid at home, it ordered gunnery officers to dismount -such new shells or bombs with the aid of assistants in order to learn -their construction. This implied great danger. Then the fillings of the -new shells and bombs had to be examined by analytical chemists to -determine their composition. In certain cases this work was detrimental -to the health of the chemists and their assistants and always -considerably dangerous. - -In the same way the state ordered the medical men to make experiments -with new weapons against dangerous diseases. These weapons were the -vaccines. The fact that during these experiments not only the -experimental persons but also the medical men were exposed to great -danger was proved when Dr. Ding infected himself unintentionally at the -beginning of his typhus experiments and became seriously ill with -typhus. - -With regard to such medical experiments, one has to agree on principle -with the opinion of Professor Ivy and Professor Leibbrandt that such -experiments may only be performed on volunteers. But even Professor Ivy -admitted that there is a difference between those cases in which a -scientific research worker starts such experiments on his own initiative -and the cases in which the competent organs of the state authorize him -to do so. He answered the question of whether the organ of the state is -responsible in the affirmative; but he added that this has nothing to do -with the moral responsibility of the experimenter towards the -experimental subject. - -If the experiment is ordered by the state, this moral responsibility of -experimenter towards the experimental subject relates to the way in -which the experiment is performed, not to the experiment itself. - -The prosecution did not contest that the experiments at Buchenwald were -carried out correctly. By way of precaution, I offered evidence for the -correct execution in my closing brief. - -In answer to a question by Dr. Sauter, Professor Ivy observed that he -did not think the state could take the responsibility of ordering a -scientist to kill a man in order to obtain knowledge. - -The case with the typhus experiments is different. No order was given to -kill a man in order to obtain knowledge. But the typhus experiments were -dangerous experiments. Out of 724 experimental persons, 154 died. But -these 154 deaths from the typhus experiments have to be compared with -the 15,000 who died of typhus _every day_ in the camps for Soviet -prisoners of war, and the innumerable deaths from typhus among the -civilian population of the occupied eastern territories and the German -troops. This enormous number of deaths led to the absolute necessity of -having effective vaccines against typhus in sufficient quantity. The -newly developed vaccines had been tested in the animal experiments as to -their compatibility. - -I explained this in detail in writing. - -The Tribunal will have to decide whether, in view of the enormous extent -of epidemic typhus, in view of the 15,000 deaths it was causing daily in -the camps for Russian prisoners of war alone, the order given by the -government authorities to test the typhus vaccines was justified or not. -If the answer is in the affirmative, then the typhus experiments at -Buchenwald were not criminal, since the prosecution did not contest that -they were carried out according to the rules of medical science. In this -case, any responsibility of Mrugowsky for these experiments is excluded. -If, on the other hand, the Tribunal answered the question in the -negative and declared the typhus experiments at Buchenwald to be -criminal, then examination would have to be made as to whether Mrugowsky -was responsible for them in any way. - -In my written statement I explained in detail that Block 46 at -Buchenwald, where the experiments were carried out, was not subordinate -to Mrugowsky, but that Dr. Ding worked under the immediate orders of -Grawitz. Out of the extensive evidence I offered to prove this fact, I -only want to stress, one, the letter addressed by Grawitz to Mrugowsky -in which Grawitz declared explicitly on 24 August 1944 that he gave his -_consent_ for the series of experiments he mentioned in the letter to be -performed in Block 46 at Buchenwald, and two, the letter addressed by -Mrugowsky to Grawitz on 29 January 1945 in which he suggests the testing -of a jaundice virus and writes: “Please obtain permission from the Reich -Leader SS to perform the infection experiments _in the typhus -experimental station of the concentration camp Buchenwald_.” - -These two letters demonstrate that even in autumn 1944 and early in 1945 -Mrugowsky could still only have performed a series of experiments in -Block 46 with special permission. This refutes the assumption of the -prosecution that Block 46 was subordinate to Mrugowsky. - -But above all, I want to stress again the affidavit given by Dr. Morgen -on 23 May 1947 in which he stated that when he investigated the -occurrences in Block 46 at Buchenwald, Dr. Ding showed him an order -signed by Grawitz in which Ding was commissioned explicitly to carry out -the experiments. - -Dr. Morgen has further stated that he had to report to Grawitz -personally about the result of his investigations as an examining -magistrate at Buchenwald. The results here, too, according to the -affidavit given by Dr. Morgen showed that Grawitz ordered the -experiments. On this occasion he called Dr. Ding “his man,” and said he -would be very sorry if the investigation caused any charges to be -brought against Dr. Ding, since he had employed him for the experiments. -Morgen emphasized that the name of Mrugowsky was not mentioned in the -course of his conversations with Ding and Grawitz. This clearly shows, I -think, that Mrugowsky had nothing to do with Block 46 at Buchenwald. As -further evidence that Ding was actually subordinate to Mrugowsky in -Block 46, the prosecution referred to the sketches designed by -Mrugowsky. (_NO-416, Pros. Ex. 22 and NO-417, Pros. Ex. 23._) These -pictures show that the Division for Typhus and Virus Research in -Buchenwald was subordinate to Mrugowsky; Mrugowsky does not deny this. -Division for Typhus and Virus Research was only Block 50. Block 46 was -called as formerly “Experimental Station of the Concentration Camp -Buchenwald.” Mrugowsky’s letter just quoted shows this. Block 46 was -merely attached to the Division for Typhus and Virus Research without -establishing thereby any relationship of subordination to Mrugowsky. -This is described and proved in detail in my closing brief. - -From the two sketches designed by Mrugowsky, showing that the Division -for Typhus and Virus Research was under his control from its -establishment to the end of the war, nothing can be deduced, therefore, -about whether he was Ding’s superior in Block 46. - -This fact and the further evidence brought in my closing brief -demonstrate that Block 46 at Buchenwald was not subordinate to -Mrugowsky. Therefore, Mrugowsky bears no responsibility for the typhus -experiments in Block 46. - -In this connection, I want to emphasize that Mrugowsky never denied that -he knew the typhus experiments at Buchenwald were ordered by Grawitz and -carried out by Dr. Ding. He never denied that he saw, for instance, the -report about the series I of the experiments, which he rewrote in his -letter of May 5, 1942, and that he saw Ding’s essay about acridine which -Ding sent to Grawitz for approval to publish 18 months after the -experiments were completed, and which Grawitz then gave to Mrugowsky to -return to Ding. But from this knowledge, no responsibility on the part -of Mrugowsky can be deduced for the typhus experiments. The experiments -were ordered by Himmler and Grawitz as his highest military superiors. -As a medical officer of the Waffen SS, Mrugowsky had no possibility at -all of opposing these experiments ordered by his superiors. When Grawitz -first suggested the experiments, he resisted at once, and induced him to -ask for a decision from Himmler as the highest superior. Himmler decided -against Mrugowsky. Under these conditions Mrugowsky could do no more. -His opposition, however, resulted in the fact that he was not -commissioned with the experiments, but that Ding received the order for -execution. - -Nor has the prosecution brought any evidence to show that Mrugowsky -subsequently intervened in any way in the typhus experiments at -Buchenwald; that he furthered them, or participated in them in any way. -On account of the fact that Mrugowsky knew about the typhus experiments, -no charge can be made against him under criminal law, because neither in -law nor in fact had he any possibility of preventing the experiments or -enforcing their cessation later on. - -The prosecution further based its charge against Mrugowsky on the -depositions of several witnesses to the effect that he had been Ding’s -chief in Block 46, also insofar as the experiments carried out by Ding -in Block 46 were concerned. I have energetically contested this. All the -statements produced by the prosecution in this respect originate from -Ding. None of these statements comes from anybody who worked in Block 46 -himself. It is significant that the prosecution has not been able to -submit one single order given by Mrugowsky to Ding for the execution of -typhus experiments, although its witness, Balachowsky, stated that Kogon -had managed to collect and secure extensive evidence which he had handed -over to the American Army. If there had been any written orders from -Mrugowsky to Ding, the latter would certainly not have destroyed them -for the sake of his own protection, and Kogon would have given them to -the American Army with his other documents. It is true that the witness -Kogon (whose unreliability I shall prove later) maintains that Mrugowsky -gave mostly only oral orders to Ding. But he further testified that from -the year 1943 onwards, Ding was no longer satisfied with oral orders -from Mrugowsky but asked for them to be given in writing. In spite of -this, not a single written order from Mrugowsky to Ding concerning the -execution of a series of typhus experiments was produced. - -The only witness who might be able to state from his own knowledge -anything about the order given to Ding in respect of the typhus -experiments is the witness Dr. Morgen. I just indicated that Morgen saw -the order given by Grawitz to Ding for the execution of the typhus -experiments, and that Grawitz personally told Dr. Morgen that Ding was -his man at Buchenwald and said he employed him there. - -The error of the witnesses, who stated that Mrugowsky had been Ding’s -chief, results from the fact that Ding was dependent on Mrugowsky in -respect of the production of vaccine in Block 50 and also concerning his -activity as a hygienist. I proved in my closing brief that from 1942 to -1945 Ding was only working on the typhus vaccine experiments for about -2½ months, if one adds up all the hours he worked on them. All the rest -of his activity in approximately 3 years was devoted to the vaccine -production and the work of a hygienist, that is, work in which he was -Mrugowsky’s subordinate. It is comprehensible that during the -approximate period of 33 months when he worked for Mrugowsky, he -received many more orders from him than from Grawitz for the execution -of the 13 typhus vaccine experiments. It is, therefore, comprehensible -that the main part of his correspondence under these circumstances was -carried on with Mrugowsky. - -In consequence of the description of the prosecution which hardly spoke -of anything except the typhus vaccine experiments, and only produced -documents thereon, the impression was certainly given that the typhus -vaccine experiments were Ding’s main activity at Buchenwald. That is not -so. In his main activity at Buchenwald, Ding was Mrugowsky’s -subordinate. Therefore, because his main correspondence was with -Mrugowsky and he called Mrugowsky his superior, one cannot assume that -also in respect of the typhus vaccine experiments there was some -connection between Mrugowsky and Ding, and that Mrugowsky participated -in these experiments in any way or was responsible for them. The -prosecution did not deny that such double subordination, as it existed -between Ding on the one hand and Grawitz and Mrugowsky on the other, is -possible in a military organization and happened frequently. I can refer -also in this respect to the statement in my closing brief. - -The testimony of the witness Kogon and Ding’s diary (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. -287_) are the chief items of evidence submitted by the prosecution -against Mrugowsky. This is why, in my closing brief, I explained in -detail that neither Kogon’s statement nor the Ding diary furnish any -substantial proof. As to Kogon’s testimony, I want to emphasize once -more the principal points: - -Kogon described on the witness stand the dramatic circumstances under -which he pretends to have saved the so-called Ding diary. I needn’t -point out that the particular occurrences which happened when he saved -the diary would have impressed him so much that he would not forget them -if his statement were true. Therefore, he couldn’t possibly give a -different description of this event on several different occasions. In -fact, in the doctors’ trial and in the Pohl trial,[61] he gave two -reports about the way he allegedly saved the diary. These reports differ -so fundamentally and in a manner which could only be possible if his -contention that he saved the diary is untrue, and the descriptions he -gives of this event are pure invention. - -Kogon stated in the doctors’ trial that Ding sorted the secret documents -to be burned in Block 46. While Ding and Dietzsch went into the -adjoining room for a moment, he threw the diary and a heap of papers -into a box to save them from destruction. Two days later he had told -Ding that he had saved the diary and a heap of other papers from being -destroyed and received permission to fetch them from Block 46; -otherwise, he wouldn’t have been able to get them out. He fetched them -and kept them ever since. This description is quite plausible and would -be hard to refute if there was not Kogon’s own testimony in the Pohl -trial. - -In the Pohl trial, the same Kogon testified about three months later -that he was standing with Ding and Dietzsch at the same table when the -secret documents were sorted for destruction. Suddenly Ding pushed the -diary and other papers towards him. He took them and carried them to -Block 50, together with Ding. Ding did not know at this time that Kogon -had the diary and the other documents with him, but he told Ding this on -the same day. - -A more striking contradiction than these two statements about the saving -of the diary is hardly possible. If Kogon had really saved the diary in -the way he described in the doctors’ trial, then the moment when he -threw the diary into the box and his reflections during the two days -before he told Ding that the diary had not been burned would have -remained indelibly in his memory. He would have remembered the way from -Block 46 to Block 50 to fetch the diary and the way back with the diary -so well, that a different description would be impossible. Also, if the -preservation of the diary had occurred in the way described by Kogon in -the Pohl trial, it certainly would have been recollected by him so -clearly that a different description would also be impossible. So the -two descriptions about the preservation of the diary, differing so -fundamentally from each other, can only be explained in two ways. Either -Kogon’s statement is untrue and he didn’t save the diary at all—in this -case, if he told the Tribunal a falsehood about such an important point, -then his whole testimony is unreliable—or Kogon must have such a bad -memory that his contradictions in his testimony can be explained -therefrom. In this case, too, his entire testimony would have no -probative value on account of his bad memory. - -The Dietzsch testimony submitted by me speaks against the correctness of -Kogon’s statement on the saving of the diary. Dietzsch states that -during the destruction of the secret documents in Block 46 Ding tore up -the diary in his presence and threw it into the lighted stove where it -was burned. Dietzsch declared explicitly that Ding made sure that all -the documents were entirely burned after the destruction of the papers -was finished. - -I should say that Dietzsch’s statement combined with the contradiction -between the two statements of Kogon’s proves that what Kogon said about -the saving of the diary is a falsehood. - -In my closing brief I dealt in detail with still further points on which -the statements made by Kogon in the doctors’ trial and in the Pohl trial -contradict each other in a similarly marked manner concerning the -preservation of the diary. It will not be necessary to repeat all these -arguments here. I should like to refer the Tribunal to them. - -The second main evidence of the prosecution against Mrugowsky is the -diary which is said to have been saved. The two fantastic descriptions -of the saving of the diary given by Kogon are unreliable. Therefore, -Dietzsch must be believed. He said that Ding burned the original diary -of Block 46 in his presence. This statement is supported by the opinion -given by the handwriting experts, Zettner and Nastvogel, treated in -detail in my closing brief. - -In the meantime the prosecution declared while discussing the Beiglboeck -evidence that it could have handwriting examined to determine the date -of its origin at an institute in Frankfurt and also documents -investigated in every way. The prosecution thereupon stressed explicitly -that I also had the Ding diary examined by experts. - -The Ding diary is of importance for the prosecution for the charges -against several defendants. Therefore, the prosecution ought to have -found it more important to have the genuineness of the Ding diary -examined rather than the Beiglboeck documents. Ding signed in ink. So -the institute at Frankfurt would have been able to ascertain without any -difficulty whether the signature on the first page is several years -older than the signature on the last page. Furthermore, the institute -could have ascertained without any difficulty whether the whole diary -from the end of the year 1941 till spring 1945 was written on exactly -the same paper or not. But the prosecution did not hand the diary to -this institute for examination. This fact shows that it was itself -convinced that such examination would not have given a result favorable -to the prosecution. - -In my opinion, this is a particularly strong argument for the assumption -that the diary was really composed and written subsequently. I also want -to refer the Tribunal to my closing brief with reference to this point. -The probative value of a diary lies in the fact that the man who kept it -cannot foresee the future development when making his entries. Therefore -it is to be presumed that the entries portray the events objectively and -in their entirety. If a document which is subsequently composed is given -the external form of a diary, one can deduce therefrom the intention to -influence the reader in a certain direction and also to deceive him for -this purpose. That is the reason why any record written subsequently and -made up in the form of a diary has no probative value. - -The prosecution tried to show that the Ding diary is of probative value -by comparing its contents with a number of documents having the same -contents as the entries in the diary. In my closing brief I dealt with -these documents in detail and proved that they all, without exception, -came from Ding. All documents which the prosecution compared with the -diary, Ding still had at hand when he made the belated compilation after -the original diary had been burned. They are vouchers he used for the -entries he made in the diary we have now. Therefore, it cannot be -deduced from the conformity of these documents and the diary that the -latter is good evidence. - -One of the documents the prosecution compared with the diary is the -so-called work report of Ding. This work report is really only a draft -which was not signed and was not sent to Mrugowsky. I explained this in -detail in my closing brief and offered evidence for it. According to -Kogon’s statement, this draft of the report was written in Block 50 by -the second compound clerk. Such draft has no probative value unless it -is signed by the person who should sign it. In this instance, it would -have been Ding. Mr. Hardy admitted that this work report was only -prepared for signature by Ding. He thereby admitted that it was not -signed. Therefore, the draft has no probative value. If these three main -elements of evidence fail, Kogon’s statement, the work report, and the -Ding dairy, the chief part of the evidence brought forward against -Mrugowsky fails. - -The prosecution contended in its summing-up that the experimental -subjects volunteered neither for the typhus experiments nor for the -other experiments at Buchenwald. In respect of the other experiments, -this is not correct. I shall deal with this later. In respect to the -typhus experiments, it may be correct that most of the experimental -subjects did not volunteer. - -On the other hand, the closing brief of the prosecution shows no -allegation for the period up to the fall of 1943 that Mrugowsky had -anything to do with the selection of the prisoners for the experiments. -This is correct and was also put in in my closing brief. In autumn 1943 -according to the contentions of the prosecution, again relying on -Kogon’s testimony, Ding is said to have asked Mrugowsky for the -experimental subjects to be chosen by the Reich Leader SS. This -statement of Kogon’s is also untrue. I have pointed this out in detail -in my written statement. - -In this connection, the prosecution mentions Himmler’s order of 27 -February 1944 relating to the selection of the prisoners by the Reich -police agency. But this order of Himmler was not given pursuant to a -suggestion made by Mrugowsky. It is really due to the attempts of Dr. -Morgen. He explained this accurately in his affidavit of 23 May 1947, -which I offered in evidence. - -So it is an established fact that until autumn 1943 Mrugowsky had -nothing to do with the selection of the prisoners, and that from this -time on, the prisoners for the typhus experiments were chosen by the -Reich criminal police agency pursuant to Himmler’s order suggested by -Dr. Morgen, so that _after_ this time Mrugowsky had _also_ nothing to do -with the choice of the prisoners. - -The prosecution calls the typhus experiments criminal, in particular, -because control persons were used and above all because of the alleged -“passage persons”.[62] As to the control persons, I explained at length -in my closing brief that such vaccine experiments are impossible without -the use of control subjects and lead to no practical result without -them. - -If one takes the Ding diary for information, it appears that in a number -of test series the cultural virus used was no longer pathogenic to human -beings. If no control persons had been infected, the fact that the -experimental persons were not taken ill would have been explained as a -consequence of the protection obtained by the vaccination. This would -have led to entirely wrong deductions and to the use of inferior -vaccines in practice. If one considers the typhus experiments as -admissible, the use of control subjects is, therefore, indispensable. I -explained this in detail in my closing brief. - -On the other hand there was no justification for the use of passage -persons who were infected merely in order to have live virus always on -hand. I have demonstrated in my written arguments that such passage -persons were never used. Until April 1943 there was no reason to use -them. For until April 1943 it is stated explicitly in the Ding diary -that in each series of experiments the infection was performed by means -of cultural virus bred in the yolk sacs of hens’ eggs which Ding -obtained from the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. After 11 April 1943, -Ding infected with fresh blood taken from persons suffering from typhus. -But during this period, too, the use of passage persons was superfluous -because Ding always had persons at his disposal who had contracted -typhus spontaneously, and he could take the fresh infected blood from -them. - -If the prosecution had wanted to bring evidence to show that passage -persons were used in Block 46, this could have been done best of all by -Ding and Dietzsch. The prosecution produced statements from both in -which the question of the passage persons is not mentioned. The -prosecution knew from the examination of Mrugowsky on the witness stand -that he denied the use of passage persons. When I said at the end of the -presentation of my evidence that I did not call Dietzsch to the witness -stand but only offered an affidavit from him, Mr. Hardy asked the -Tribunal for permission to interrogate Dietzsch on certain facts. - -However, he never produced a record of such an interrogation. This is -further evidence that Dietzsch did not confirm the use of passage -persons. All the witnesses who testified on the use of passage persons -did not work in Block 46. They, therefore, know nothing from their own -observation, but only through third persons. Dr. Morgen discovered -nothing about passage persons during his investigations as an examining -magistrate in Block 46 in Buchenwald. So there is no conclusive evidence -of any kind to show that passage persons were used in Block 46. On the -contrary, I proved in my closing brief that passage persons actually -were _not_ used. - -If the Tribunal were, nevertheless, to assume that the use of passage -persons was proved, there would be no guilt of Mrugowsky involved in the -use of these passage persons because I demonstrated that Ding was not -his subordinate in respect of his activity in Block 46, and also there -is no evidence whatever to show that he even as much as knew about the -use of passage persons. - -In my written statements, I then dealt in detail with the experiments -with acridine preparations within the framework of the typhus -experiments. I proved that Ding did not obtain these preparations from -Mrugowsky but from the I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. There is no evidence -whatever to show that Mrugowsky had any knowledge of these experiments -performed by Ding. - -Ding’s report on the acridine experiments submitted for publication was -handed to Mrugowsky by Grawitz only about 18 months after the -termination of the experiments. Therefore, no charge can be made against -Mrugowsky under criminal law for the experiments with acridine -preparations which caused a particularly high number of deaths. - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR - DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY_ - - * * * * * - -_Convalescence Serum, Blood Conservation, and Blood Serum Conservation_ - CONVALESCENCE SERUM - -In Ding’s diary (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_) two entries are found -concerning the taking of blood for the purpose of extracting -convalescence serum. During the period from 26 May to 12 June 1944, -6,500 cc. of blood were taken from 15 defervescent typhus patients, and -between 13 October and 31 October 1944, 20,800 cc. of blood were taken -from 44 defervescent typhus patients. The blood was taken between the -12th [14th] and the 21st day following the disappearance of the fever. -Thus an average of 465 cc. for each patient can be calculated. The -witness for the prosecution, Kogon, has testified on this question. -(_Tr. pp. 1192-3._) His statement contains several serious -misinterpretations. In the first place, it must be stressed that the -taking of blood from a convalescent patient by no means constitutes an -“experiment,” as indicated by Mr. McHaney. What would be the experiment -in that case? The only thing to find out is whether the person in -question is suitable or not for the taking of blood. - -Even Kogon admits that the taking of blood from convalescent patients is -an ordinary procedure. I have proved the same thing through Mrugowsky -14, Mrugowsky Exhibit 37. The same appears from the affidavit of the -expert, Professor Dr. Siebeck. (_Mrugowsky 15, Mrugowsky Ex. 38._) There -it says: - - “* * * It is correct that in the case of typhus, convalescence - serum is frequently used for therapeutical purposes * * *.” - -The expert, Professor Dr. Vollhardt, also confessed to the same opinion. -It is then a fact that the taking of blood from former typhus patients -during convalescence is, in principle, in accordance with medical usage. - -It has been proved that no objections can be raised against the -treatment in Block 46. Accordingly, it is very improbable that the -physician in charge should have exposed particularly asthenic patients -to the taking of blood. The witness Dorn has stated that the delivery of -drugs to Block 46 took place through the prison hospital and that he -personally discharged the deliveries twice a week. Furthermore, the -examining judge, Dr. Morgen (_Mrugowsky 23, Mrugowsky Ex. 26_) -demonstrated that even in 1944— - - “* * * the treatment and supply of the sick persons was careful - and good in every respect. According to the impression I gained, - the sick persons were treated similar to those in a good - military hospital.” - -This is also confirmed through the indictment of Morgen against Koch. -(_NO-2366, Pros. Ex. 526._) - -Consequently, there is no reason to doubt that they were in a condition -favorable to the taking of blood and that this constituted no danger for -them. Mrugowsky expressed his opinion on this question during his -examination. (_Tr. p. 5166._) He pointed out that the taking of blood in -a quantity not exceeding 500 cc. is in complete compliance with medical -regulations and that the convalescent patients received additional food -as compensation for the loss of blood. In his affidavit Dr. Ellenbeck -propounded his view concerning the extraction of typhus convalescence -serum. (_Mrugowsky 120, Mrugowsky Ex. 110._) From this it appears that -Ellenbeck also received blood from patients belonging to the Waffen SS, -consequently not exclusively from prisoners in the concentration camps. -In the above-mentioned document (_Mrugowsky 15, Mrugowsky Ex. 38_) -Professor Siebeck expressly points out: - - “It is at least quite improbable, if not impossible, for human - beings, who are in the convalescent stage of typhus, to be so - harmed by a single bloodletting of 439 cc. that they die after a - certain period has elapsed in consequence of the loss of blood.” - -The same opinion is endorsed by Professor Dr. Vollhardt. - -In face of this evidence no support is to be found for the assertion of -Kogon that many convalescent patients died at that time, nor for his -suspicion that they died as a consequence of the taking of blood. The -result of this exposition then is that: - -1. The taking of blood for the purpose of extraction of convalescence -serum is not an experiment but a medical measure. It is not criminal but -customary throughout the world. - -2. The bleedings were carried out according to the regulations of -medical science. - -3. The quantities taken were below the usual limit, probably even very -far below. - -4. It is absolutely impossible that any person whatsoever died as a -consequence of the taking of blood. - -On the other hand, the blood pressure of persons convalescing from -typhus, in particular, is often too low. Their blood vessels are still -not as elastic as before. In such cases, a withdrawal of blood within -the normal limits is very often a practiced method of relieving the -circulation. - - PRESERVATION OF BLOOD SERUM - -Furthermore, Kogon states that Dr. Ellenbeck carried out the taking of -blood in the small camp to obtain a stock of blood serum. (_Tr. p. -1192._) Kogon further states that in the part of the Buchenwald -concentration camp, where blood was taken, there were enough volunteers -and they received additional food. He answered the question as to -whether anybody died as a consequence of the taking of blood as follows: - - “* * * It is impossible to establish whether anybody died - directly or indirectly as a consequence of the taking of blood * - * *.” - -Dr. Ellenbeck made the following statement concerning that question: - - “From the fall of 1944 onwards, as far as I know by request of - the leading physician of the concentration camps, the department - for the conservation of blood produced a conserved blood serum - to be used for the emergency treatment of prisoners since drugs - became more and more scarce. I had nothing whatsoever to do with - the drawing of blood and the supply. I had the blood sent to - Berlin. On account of reasons to be found in the aerial warfare, - the production of this conserved blood serum was only very - small. - - “Kogon maintained that SS medical personnel from Berlin drew the - blood for this conserved blood serum. That is untrue. No SS - medical personnel came from Berlin to Buchenwald in order to - fetch blood, but ordinary couriers came who were not in a - position to draw the blood.” (_Mrugowsky 120, Mrugowsky Ex. - 110._) - -Therefore these amounts of blood, too, were only small. Ellenbeck can -state positively that such stocks of serum were not made for other -purposes in his laboratory. The medical officer of the concentration -camp gave him the order. The stocks of serum he had prepared were made -available to him again. * * * - - “To the question as to whether people died after the removal of - blood, I refer to the above-quoted statements of the - specialists, Professor Dr. Vollhardt and Professor Dr. Siebeck.” - -I would also like to point out that according to Kogon’s statement, Dr. -Ellenbeck himself saw to it that the prisoners actually received their -additional food after the removal of blood. The prisoners volunteered -for the removal of blood and received additional food for it. That -somebody died as a consequence of the removal of blood is a statement -without any basis. - -I cannot imagine how a criminal character can be attached to this -removal of blood. The taking of blood from volunteers is not criminal in -any way. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - -Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page -NO-429 281 Extract from the affidavit of defendant 555 - Hoven, 24 October 1946, concerning - typhus and virus experiments. -NO-265 287 Diary of the division for typhus and 557 - virus research at the Institute of - Hygiene of the Waffen SS, 1941 to 1945 - (Ding diary). -NO-257 283 Extract from the affidavit of Dr. Erwin 572 - Schuler, 20 July 1945, concerning - typhus experiments. -NO-571 285 1943 work report for department for 573 - typhus and virus research. -NO-121 293 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, 15 November 578 - 1943, concerning prisoners to be used - as experimental subjects for tests with - typhus vaccine. -NO-122 298 Letter dictated by Rose, addressed to 579 - Haagen, 13 December 1943, concerning - experimental subjects for vaccine - experiments. -NO-123 303 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, 9 March 1944, 580 - concerning experiments conducted with - typhus vaccine and requesting - experimental subjects. -NO-139 317 Letter from Dr. Grunske to Haagen, 7 581 - March 1944, concerning reports on - yellow fever virus experiments - requested by a Japanese medical - officer. - - _Defense Documents_ - -Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page -Rose 16 Rose 12 Extracts from the affidavit of Professor 581 - Otto Lenz, director of the Robert Koch - Institute in Berlin. -Rose 46 Rose 20 Extract from a certified statement, 4 582 - March 1947, of J. Oerskov, M. D., - director of the State Serum Institute - in Copenhagen. - - _Testimony_ - -Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Eugen Kogon 583 -Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rose 586 -Extract from the testimony of defendant Mrugowsky 595 -Extracts from the testimony of defense witness Dr. Eugen Haagen 606 - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-429 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 281 - - EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT HOVEN, 24 OCTOBER 1946, - CONCERNING TYPHUS AND VIRUS EXPERIMENTS - -I, Waldemar Hoven, being duly sworn, depose and state: - - * * * * * - - _Typhus and Virus Experiments_ - -4. In the latter part of 1941 an experimental station was established in -the Buchenwald concentration camp in order to determine the -effectiveness of various typhus vaccines. This section was called the -“Typhus Experimental Station—Division for Typhus and Virus Research” -and was under the direct supervision of Dr. Ding, alias Schuler. This -experimental station was set up in Block 46 of the camp. The Hygiene -Institute of the Waffen SS in Berlin, under the command of Dr. Joachim -Mrugowsky, received all the reports of these activities and Dr. Ding -took orders from Mrugowsky. In the early days, that is, between 1941 and -the summer of 1943, Dr. Ding had many meetings in Berlin with Dr. Karl -Genzken concerning his work at Buchenwald in connection with the typhus -experiments. Dr. Ding told me that Dr. Genzken had a special interest in -these matters and that he sent him reports at various times. Dr. Ding -also said that Dr. Karl Genzken was one of his superiors. From my -association with Dr. Ding, I understood that the chain of command in the -supervision of the typhus experimental station was as follows: -Reichsarzt SS Grawitz, Genzken, Mrugowsky, and Ding. - -5. I can recollect that Dr. Genzken gave orders to Dr. Ding in January -1943 to enlarge the experimental station. At this time Block 60 was -cleaned out and made into a station for the production of the various -vaccines to be used in the experiments at Block 46. From this time on -the experimental station was known as the “Division for Typhus and Virus -Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS”. Then in the summer -of 1943, Dr. Genzken turned all his duties over to Dr. Mrugowsky, and -from that time on Genzken no longer actively participated in these -matters. I can recall meeting Dr. Mrugowsky in the home of Dr. Ding on -one of his visits to Buchenwald. - -6. Inasmuch as I was constantly associated with Dr. Ding at Buchenwald, -we became very friendly. I frequently discussed matters with Ding and -visited his experimental station from time to time. As a matter of fact, -Dr. Ding had to go to Berlin for discussions with Dr. Mrugowsky and -others nearly 3 days out of every two weeks, and on such occasions I was -in charge of the typhus institute. However, when Ding went to Berlin the -experiments were discontinued until he returned. - -7. The experiments in Block 46 in the Buchenwald concentration camp were -conducted as follows: One group of victims was first vaccinated with the -typhus vaccine and then infected with the typhus virus. In order to -contrast the effectiveness of the vaccine, another group of inmates was -merely infected with the typhus virus without previous vaccination. -Between the autumn of 1942 and the summer of 1943 about 500 inmates of -the Buchenwald concentration camp were used in these experiments. During -my time about 10 percent of the total number of the inmates used, died -as a result. I heard that a larger number of the victims died after my -time, that is, about 20 percent. - -8. The selection of inmates to be used for the purposes of medical -experiments in Block 46 by the Division for Typhus and Virus Research -was as follows: Whenever Dr. Ding needed human beings for his work, a -request was made to the office of the camp commandant and referred to me -for action. Usually a man named Schober, an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer, -notified me to select the necessary number of prisoners for these -purposes. In accordance with this request I selected various inmates, at -random, from the roster of the camp. They were placed on a list over my -signature and returned to Schober, who often removed certain names from -the list for political reasons. In the event of particular prisoners -being removed from the list, I was requested to select substitutes in -order to provide Dr. Ding with the desired number of victims. After I -returned the completed list to Schober, it was given to Dr. Ding for -approval. He made a final check to ascertain, from a medical point of -view, the physical condition of the selected inmates and to determine -whether or not they met with his requirements. - - * * * * * - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-265 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 287 - -DIARY OF THE DIVISION FOR TYPHUS AND VIRUS RESEARCH AT THE INSTITUTE OF - HYGIENE OF THE WAFFEN SS, 1941 TO 1945 (DING DIARY) - -_29 Dec 41_: - -Conference between Army Sanitation Inspection [Inspector], General Chief -Surgeon Professor Dr. Handloser; State Secretary for the Department of -Health of the Reich, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Conti; President Professor -Reiter of the Health Department of the Reich; President Professor -Gildemeister of the Robert Koch Institute (Reich Institute to Combat -Contagious Diseases) and SS Standartenfuehrer and Lecturer [Dozent] Dr. -Mrugowsky of the Institute of Hygiene, Waffen SS, Berlin. - -It has been established that the need exists to test the efficacy of, -and resistance of the human body to, the typhus serum extracted from the -egg yolks. Since tests on animals are not of sufficient value, tests on -human beings must be carried out. - -_2 Jan 42_: - -The concentration camp Buchenwald is chosen for testing the typhus -vaccines. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Ding is charged with these tests. - -_5 Jan 42_: - -Preliminary test A: - -Preliminary test to determine the surest and most practical way of -infecting human beings artificially. Five experimental subjects received -intramuscular and subcutaneous injections of vitelline membrane diluted -1:25 with an emulsified Rickettsia-Prowazeki strain from the Robert Koch -Institute in doses of 1 cc. Infection was not possible. - - DR. DING - SS Hauptsturmfuehrer - -_10 Jan 42_: - -Preliminary test B: - -Preliminary test to establish a sure means of infection: Much as in -smallpox vaccination, 5 persons were infected with vitelline membrane -culture virus (strain Rickettsia-Prowazeki, Robert Koch Institute) -through 2 superficial and 2 deeper cuts in the upper arm. - -All experimental subjects used for this test fell ill with genuine -typhus. Incubation period 2 to 6 days. - -_20 Jan 42_: - -Preliminary report of reactions to vaccinations. Through continuous -blood pictures a strong surplus of neutrophile myelocytes was -discovered. - -_20 Feb 42_: - -Case history and charts of the preliminary tests to establish a sure -means of infection sent to Berlin. - -1 death out of 5 sick. - - DR. DING - SS Hauptsturmfuehrer - -_6 Jan 42_: - -_1 Feb 42_: - - _Typhus Vaccine, Research Series I_ - -Vaccination for immunization against typhus using the following -vaccines: - -1. 31 persons with Weigl vaccine from the intestines of lice from the -Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the Army High Command, -Krakow. - -2. 35 persons with vaccine from vitelline membrane cultures made by the -Cox, Gildemeister, and Haagen process. - -3. 35 persons with vaccine “Behring Normal” (1 egg in an emulsion of 450 -cc. vaccine. Mixture of 70 percent Rickettsia Mooseri and 30 percent -Rickettsia-Prowazeki). - -4. 34 persons with “Behring Normal” “Behring Strong” (1 egg emulsified -in 250 cc. solvent). - -5. 10 persons for control. - -_3 Mar 42_: - -All persons vaccinated for immunization between 6 Jan 42 and 1 Feb 42, -and the 10 control persons were infected with a virus culture of -Rickettsia-Prowazeki in the presence of Professor Gildemeister. SS -Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding infected himself in the process (laboratory -accident). - -_17 Mar 42_: - -Visit of Professor Gildemeister and Professor Rose (Head of the -Department for Tropical Medicine in the Robert Koch Institute) to the -experimental station. All persons experimented on fell sick with typhus -except two who, as was established later, had already had typhus during -an epidemic at the police prison in Berlin. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. -Ding fell sick with typhus and is in the hospital in Berlin. SS -Hauptsturmfuehrer Hoven, station medical officer of the Waffen SS in -Weimar, is supervising the stations in the meantime (Blocks 44 and 49). - -_19 Apr 42_: - -Final report on the 1st typhus vaccine research series: Stone Block 46 -will be made available for the purpose of these typhus experiments. - -5 deaths (3 control persons, 1 “Behring Normal”, and 1 “Behring -Strong”). - - DR. DING - SS Hauptsturmfuehrer - -_19 Aug 42_: - -_4 Sep 42_: - - _Typhus Vaccine, Research Series II_ - -Vaccination for immunization against typhus using the following -vaccines: - -1. 20 persons with vaccines made by the Durand and Giroud process -(Pasteur Institute, Paris) from rabbit lungs. - -2. 20 persons with vaccine made by the process of Combiescu, Zotta, and -collaborators from dog lungs. (Producer: Cantacuzino, Bucharest.) This -vaccine was made available by Professor Rose, who received it from Naval -Doctor Professor Ruge from Bucharest. - -_15 Oct 42_: - -Artificial infection of all persons vaccinated for immunization between -19 September 1942 and 4 October 1942, and 19 persons for control with -vitelline membrane virus (Rickettsia-Prowazeki). - -_25 Oct 42_: - -Infection has started with all persons experimented on. - -_20 Nov 42_: - -Charts and case history sent to Berlin. - -4 deaths of control persons. - - DR. DING - SS Hauptsturmfuehrer - -_10 Sep 42_: - -_10 Oct 42_: - -Unit of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to the Pasteur Institute -in Paris to Professor Giroud. - -_22 Oct 42_: - -_5 Nov 42_: - - _Typhus Vaccine, Research Series III_ - -Vaccination for immunization against typhus of 20 persons with vaccine -made according to the process of Giroud, Paris. (This vaccine was -brought from Paris by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding immediately after -production.) - -_30 Nov 42_: - -Artificial infection with vitelline membrane material from the Robert -Koch Institute of the 20 persons vaccinated for immunization and of 6 -control persons. This research series was observed for 6 weeks and then -abandoned without results, as no sickness broke out in the control -group. - - DR. DING - SS Hauptsturmfuehrer - -_27 Oct 42_: - -_8 Nov 42_: - - _Typhus Vaccine, Research Series IV_ - -Vaccination for immunization of 20 persons with a vaccine from -intestines of lice made by the Weigl process (sent by lecturer Dr. Haas -of the typhus institute “Emil v. Behring” in Lvov), - -_30 Nov 42_: - -To test the effect of the immunization, the infection is to be carried -out with lice suffering from typhus. The lice and their cages must be -burnt immediately, as the latter became leaky during transport, and -therefore represent a danger of epidemic in Buchenwald camp. - -_3 Dec 42_: - -Newly sent lice applied to 15 persons (5 immunized and 10 persons for -control). The lice must again be destroyed, as the cages are not tight. - -Report made that infection with live typhus lice is not possible because -the danger to the camp inmates is too great. - -_4 Jan 43_: - -Due to infection by lice on 3 December 1942, five persons show short -nontypical illness. - -The research series is concluded. - - DR. DING - SS Hauptsturmfuehrer - -_15-18 Dec 42_: - -Unit of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to the opening of the -typhus research institute “Emil v. Behring” in Lvov in the General -Government (lecturer Dr. Haas). - -_28-31 Dec 42_: - -Vaccination for immunization against diphtheria of the Reserve Battalion -of the Leibstandarte SS “Adolf Hitler” (approx. 2,500 men), because of -the outbreak of an epidemic. - -Inspection of quarters and advice to the medical officer on the fighting -of the epidemic. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - _1943_ - -_1 Dec 42_: - -_20 Dec 42_: - - _Typhus Vaccine, Research Series V_ - -To determine the immunization effect, 20 persons are being actively -vaccinated for immunization with “EM” vaccine of the Behring Works—Dr. -Demnitz—(vaccine in which vitelline membrane as well as chicken embryos -were used). - -_26 Jan 43_: - -Artificial infection with vitelline membrane virus OP No. 223 and 226 -(Rickettsia-Prowazeki—strain from Robert Koch Institute). - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_9 Jan 43_: - -By order of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, SS -Gruppenfuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS Dr. Genzken, the -typhus research station at the Buchenwald concentration camp becomes the -“Division for Typhus and Virus Research.” The head of the division will -be SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding. During his absence, the station medical -officer of the Waffen SS, Weimar, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Hoven, will -supervise the production of vaccines. The Chief of the WVHA, SS -Obergruppenfuehrer and Lt. General of the Waffen SS, Pohl, has ordered -the extension of the block of stone buildings. - -SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding is at the same time appointed chief -departmental head for special missions in office XVI (Hygiene), of -office group D (medical affairs of the Waffen SS) of the SS Main -Operational Headquarters. - -_10 Jan 43_: - - _Therapeutic Experiments with Acridine and Methylene Blue_ - -At the suggestion of the I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. the following were -tested as typhus therapeutica: - -_a._ Preparation 3,582 “Acridine” of the chemical pharmaceutical and -sero-bacteriological department in Frankfurt-on-Main, Hoechst, Professor -Lautenschlaeger and Dr. Weber. - - (Therapeutic experiment A) - -_b._ Methylene Blue, tested in an experiment on mice by Professor -Kiekuth, Elberfeld. - - (Therapeutic experiment M) - -_26 Jan 43_: - -Artificial infection with vitelline membrane virus OP Nos. 223 and 226: - -20 persons for therapeutic experiment A: Acridine. - -20 persons for therapeutic experiment M: Methylene Blue. - -7 persons for control. - -_20 Feb 43_: - -The control persons from the typhus infections of the 26 January 1943 -show no typical typhus symptoms; in the groups, vaccine “EM” of the -Behring Works, Acridine, Methylene Blue, about ¼ are also not sick, the -remainder have medium typhus. - -The research series was designated to the manufacturer as “negative,” -since the persons for control could not be infected properly. - -One death in therapeutic experiment Acridine. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_10 Jan 43_: - - _Yellow Fever Vaccine Tests_ - -The Behring Works, Marburg-Lahn, the Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, and -the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the Army High Command in -Krakow were commissioned by the Army High Command to manufacture the -yellow fever vaccine of Beltier and collaborators. Since a live virus is -being handled, a test is to be performed on 5 persons for safety’s sake -from each vaccine charge. - -At the same time 50 persons are to be vaccinated _once_ with OP No. 25 -of the Robert Koch Institute, which has already been tested for its -harmlessness, to determine the decrease of working capacity. - -The results of the yellow fever vaccine tests are to be sent to office -XVI in the SS Main Operational Headquarters, in duplicate, who will -forward one to the manufacturer, and one to the Army High Command, -attention: Oberstabsarzt Dr. Schmidt, Army Medical Inspectorate. - - _List of Tested OP Numbers_ - - Manufacturer │ │ - No. 1. Behring Works, Marburg. │1, 2, 4. │13 Jan-26 Jan 43. - 2. Robert Koch Institute, │28, 30, 37, 38, │11 Jan-26 Jan 43. - Berlin. │ 39. │ - 3. Robert Koch Institute, │46, 47, 48, 49, │30 Jan-8 Feb 43. - Berlin. │ 50. │ - 4. Behring Works, Marburg. │4, 5, 6, 7, 8, │30 Jan-8 Feb 43. - │ 9, 10, 11, 12,│ - │ 13, 14, 15, │ - │ 16, 17, 18, │ - │ 19, 20, 21, │ - │ 22, 23. │ - 5. Army High Command, Krakow. │19, 21, 22, 23, │9 Feb-22 Feb 43. - │ 25, 26, 27. │ - 6. Behring Works, Marburg. │24, 25, 26, 27, │11 Feb-22 Feb 43. - │ 28, 29, 30, │ - │ 31, 32, 33. │ - 7. Behring Works, Marburg. │34, 35, 36, 37, │25 Feb-7 Mar 43. - │ 38, 39, 40, │ - │ 41, 42, 43. │ - 8. Army High Command, Krakow. │28, 29, 30, 32, │25 Feb-7 Mar 43. - │ 34. │ - 9. Robert Koch Institute, │54, 55, 57, 58. │25 Feb-7 Mar 43. - Berlin. │ │ - 10. Behring Works, Marburg. │54, 55, 56, 57, │6 May-17 May 43. - │ 58, 59, 60, │ - │ 61. │ - -Production is being abandoned for the time being because of the military -situation. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_3 Feb 43_: - - _Sterility Experiment with an Egg Vaccine_ - -A package was sent to us with a small bottle of 20 cc. typhus vaccine -from egg-yolk cultures. Op No. 35 of 15 October 1942. A second injection -on 8 December 1942, a third injection on 13 December 1942, of a typhus -vaccination for immunization was carried out on Sister Lilli Boehm, born -on 3 April 1912, by resident surgeon Dr. von Eysmond. Towards evening a -temperature of 104° F. (40° C.). Forty-eight hours after the last -vaccination, death in coma in the German clinic in Kovno. - -_Section protocol_: Typhus (No. 2033, University of Kovno, pathological -institute, Dr. Starkus). - -_Investigation_: Material vaccinated on - - 1. 2 percent Schraegagar } - 2. Bouillon } - 3. 2 percent Glucose Bouillon} - 4. Tarrozzi } No growth after 48 hours - 5. Blood slide } - 6. Klauberg slide } - -During animal experiments, guinea pigs and mice were vaccinated -intraperitoneally and under the skin of the back. No pathological -symptoms at all. - -_Results_: The vaccine not responsible for the death. Vaccination took -place during the incubation period. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_8 Feb 43_: - -Visit of Oberstabsarzt Dr. Eyer from the Institute for Typhus and Virus -Research of the Army High Command in Krakow and Oberstabsarzt Dr. -Schmidt from the Army Medical Inspectorate. - -_22 Feb 43_: - - _Examination of Unknown Bacteriological Material_ - -During August 1942 Soviet parachutists were dropped in the Marienburg -district; they carried in their baggage amphiole material, which was -turned over by the RSHA (Dept. IV A/2 Book No. 2152/439 on 25 Feb 1943). -They were dysentery bacteriophaga which could be clearly diagnosed by -animal and culture experiments; this can be used for therapeutic -purposes in cases of diarrhea. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_28 Feb 43_: -_6 Mar 43_: - -Unit of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to Paris to procure -laboratory material for the Division for Typhus and Virus Research, and -the Institute of Hygiene. - -_23 Mar 43_: - -Conference between SS Sturmbannfuehrer Barnewald, SS Sturmbannfuehrer -Dr. Ding and SS Hauptscharfuehrer Schlesinger of department W 5, W V H A -concerning the breeding of rabbits, guinea pigs, and mice as -experimental animals for the experimental department. - -_25 Jan 43_: -_28 Feb 43_: - - _Typhus Vaccine, Research Series VI_ - -To determine the immunization effect, the following were actively -vaccinated for immunization: - -20 persons with vaccine “Zuerich” from the hygiene institute of the -University of Zuerich (lungs of mice), and - -20 persons with vaccine “Riga” from the serum institute of the -University of Riga (Professor Darsin, from vitelline membrane cultures). - -_31 Mar 43_: - -Artificial infection with egg Rickettsia (Rickettsia-Prowazeki) of the -Robert Koch Institute, Berlin. - -_11 Apr 43_: - -The infection of 31 March 1943 has not resulted in any sickness so far. - -_28 Apr 43_: - -Experimental series abandoned. - - DR. DING - S Sturmbannfuehrer - -_7 Mar 43_: - -Examination of the water and inspection of the concentration camp Vught, -near Hertogenbosch. - -_8 Mar 43_: -_10 Mar 43_: - -Inspection of billets in Apeldoorn-Arnhem and vicinity. Advising chief -surgeon of the commander of the Netherlands re a diphtheria epidemic in -Apeldoorn. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_24 Mar 43_: -_20 Apr 43_: - -Carrying out of a large scale experiment on 45 persons by the process of -the hygiene institute of the Waffen SS by SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer -Dr. Mrugowsky. - -Vaccinations were made on 8 different days within 4 weeks against -smallpox, typhoid, paratyphus A and B, cholera, typhus, and diphtheria. - -Compatibility was generally good. Exact records and report were -delivered on 27 April 1943 to department chief of office XVI. - -It led partly to a strong decrease in working capacity, loss of -strength, increase of temperature, and swelling of the lymph glands. -Typhoid and smallpox were not vaccinated on the same side of the body, -otherwise great swelling of the lymph glands takes places. - -The diphtheria adsorbat vaccine led to about 20 cases of strong -formation of abcesses. Where still in the camp, the persons were again -vaccinated for smallpox within ¼ year. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_31 Mar 43_: - - _Therapeutic Experiments “Acridine Granulate” and “Rutenol”_ - -For the therapeutic experiments “Acridine Granulate” (A. Gr) and Rutenol -(R), 40 persons were infected with egg Rickettsia. - -_11 Apr 43_: - -After observation lasting several weeks, no sickness started. Report to -SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and President Professor -Gildemeister. The strain “Matelska” of the Robert Koch Institute, which -was highly virulent until a year ago, apparently is no longer pathogenic -to humans. A new means of artificial infection must therefore be found, -which will lead to typhus with certainty. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_11 Apr 43_: - -Preliminary Experiment C: - -To determine a sure means of infection, experiments with fresh blood -from persons stricken with typhus were made. Infection took place as -follows: - -3 persons—2 cc. each of fresh blood intravenously. - -2 persons—2 cc. each of fresh blood intramuscularly. - -2 persons—2 cc. each of fresh blood subcutaneously. - -2 persons—after scarification. - -2 persons—with a vaccinating scalpel cutaneously. - -Those infected intravenously contracted typical, serious typhus and died -from failure of the circulatory system. The other experimental subjects -complained only of minor discomfort, without becoming hospital cases. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_13 Apr 43_: - -Preliminary Experiment D: - -The following were infected: - -6 persons with 2 cc. each of fresh blood intravenously. - -6 persons with 2 cc. each of fresh blood intramuscularly. - -6 persons with 2 cc. each of fresh blood subcutaneously. - -6 persons by scarification. - -6 persons by means of vaccinating scalpel cutaneously. - -The 6 _intravenously_ infected persons again contracted very serious -typhus; 5 died. - -Of the 6 infected intramuscularly, one person contracted medium typhus. -The others had no serious complications, and were not hospital cases. - -The surest means of infection to produce typhus in humans is, therefore, -the intravenous injection of 2 cc. fresh typhus-infected blood. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_13 and 14 Apr 43_: - -Unit of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to I. G. Farbenindustrie A. -G., Hoechst. Conference with Professor Lautenschlaeger, Dr. Weber, and -Dr. Fussgaenger concerning the experimental series “Acridine Granulate -and Rutenol” in the concentration camp Buchenwald. - -Visit to Geheimrat Otto and Professor Prigge in the Institute for -Experimental Therapeutics in Frankfurt/Main. - -_24 Apr 43_: - - _Therapeutic Experiments Acridine Granulate (A-GR2) and Rutenol (R-2)_ - -To carry out the therapeutic experiments Acridine Granulate and Rutenol, -30 persons (15 each) and 9 persons for control were infected by -intravenous injection of 2 cc. each of fresh typhus-infected blood. All -experimental persons contracted very bad typhus. - -_1 Jun 43_: - -Charts and case history completed. - -The experimental series was concluded. - -21 deaths (8 with Acridine Granulate, 9 with Rutenol, 5 control). - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_27 Apr 43_: -_1 May 43_: - -Unit of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to Paris to procure -laboratory material for the Division for Typhus and Virus Research and -the Hygiene Institute. - -_10 Jun 43_: - - _Typhoid-Therapeutic Experiment “Otrhomin”_ - -At the suggestion of the Robert Koch Institute, Berlin (Professor Dr. -Lockemann) the effect of a new therapeuticum of the Rhoda -series—Otrhomin is to be tested on humans. For this purpose, 20 persons -of the series “Otrhomin” and 20 persons for control (10 immunized, 10 -not immunized) were infected on 10 June 1943 and on 18 June 1943 with 2 -cc. each of typhoid bacteria in a physical salt solution, given in -potato salad. Of the 40 persons, 7 became slightly sick, 23 more -seriously. Furthermore, there were 6 ambulatory cases. Four persons did -not show any symptoms. - -_28 Jul 43_: - -Charts and case history of the series “Otrhomin” completed and sent to -Berlin. - -_5 Aug 43_: - -Charts and case history of the control series completed and sent to -Berlin. - -_10 Aug 43_: - -Delivery of the records to Reich Senior Medical Counsellor Christiansen -in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. The experimental series was -concluded. - -1 death (control not immunized). - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_28 May 43_: -_18 Jun 43_: - - _Typhus Vaccine, Experimental Series VII_ - -Carrying out of typhus vaccination for immunization with the following -vaccine: - -1. 20 persons with vaccine “Asid”. - -2. 20 persons with vaccine “Asid Adsorbat” of the Anhaltinischen -Serumwerke G. m. b. H., Berlin 7. - -3. 20 persons with vaccine “Weigl” of the Institute for Typhus and Virus -Research of the Army High Command, Army (OKH) Krakow (Eyer). - -_27 Aug 43_: - -Infection of— - -20 persons in the series “Asid”. - -20 persons in the series “Asid Adsorbat”. - -20 persons in the series “Weigl”. - -10 persons for control by intravenous injection of ¼ cc. each of fresh -typhus-infected blood, strain Bu II, Passage I. - -All experimental persons got very serious typhus. - -_7 Sep 43_: - -Chart and case history completed. The experimental series was -concluded— - -53 deaths (18 with “Asid”, 18 with “Asid Adsorbat”, 9 with “Weigl”, 8 -control). - -_9 Sep 43_: - -Charts and case histories delivered to Berlin. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_8 Nov 43_: -_17 Jan 44_: - - _High Immunization Experiment with Fraenkel Vaccines_ - -According to an immunization plan of the Fraenkel high immunization for -humans, the compatibility of Fraenkel-Formol-Toxoid (Formol-Toxin of -bacterium perfringens) of humans was tested. - -At first 15 experimental subjects were vaccinated 3 times at intervals -of 14 days with 1 cc. Fraenkel-A1. F. T. (Fraenkel-Toxoid absorbed in -aluminum hydroxide). - -After an interval of 14 days, vaccinations with Fraenkel-Formol-Toxoid -(Formol-Toxin of bacterium perfringens) as follows: - - 20 Dec 43 1 cc. subcutaneously left upper arm. - 26 Dec 43 2 cc. subcutaneously right upper arm. - 31 Dec 43 4 cc. subcutaneously left upper arm. - 3 Jan 44 6 cc. subcutaneously right upper arm. - 6 Jan 44 9 cc. subcutaneously right and left chest. - 10 Jan 44 12 cc. subcutaneously both upper arms. - 14 Jan 44 15 cc. subcutaneously right and left chest. - -_17 Jan 44_: - -Observation of vaccination reactions completed and sent away. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_19 Nov 43_: -_25 Nov 43_: - - _Phosphorus-Rubber Incendiary Bomb Experiment_ - -To test the preparation “R 17” on fresh phosphorus burns and to test -“Echinacine” ointment and “Echinacine extern” for the later treatment of -wounds from phosphorus burns (all from the Dr. Madaus Works in -Dresden-Radebeul), burning tests were carried out on five experimental -subjects on the above-mentioned dates with phosphorus, matter taken from -an English incendiary bomb found near Leipzig. - -_5 Jan 44_: - -Records delivered to the Reich medical officer of the SS with the -request to forward it to the Dr. Madaus Works. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_30-31 Dec 43_: - - _Special Experiment on 4 Persons in the Koch-Hoven Case_ - -By order of SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, the experiment was carried out in -the presence of Dr. Morgen and Dr. Wehner. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_21 Dec 43_: -_16 Jan 44_: - - _Control of Blood Plasma_ - -By order of the Military Academy of Medicine, Berlin, 18 capsules of -blood plasma were tested on 18 experimental persons for their -compatibility on humans. - -_17 Jan 44_: - -Test records sent away. - -_25 Jan 44_: -_19 Feb 44_: - - _Control of Blood Plasma_ - -By order of the Military Academy of Medicine, Berlin, 30 more capsules -of blood plasma were tested on 30 experimental persons for their -compatibility on humans. - -_22 Feb 44_: - -Test papers sent to Reich medical officer of SS by courier. - - DR. DING - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - -_22 Jan 44_: -_31 Jan 44_: - - _Vaccine Preliminary Experimental Series “Weimar”_ - -To test compatibility and the immunization effect, five persons were -immunized by three vaccinations with typhus vaccine “Weimar” (producer: -Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, Division for Typhus and Virus -Research). On 22 Jan 44, 0.5 cc., on 27 Jan 44, 1.0 cc., on 31 Jan 44, -1.0 cc. were injected subcutaneously in the left or right upper arm. - -For comparison, 5 persons were immunized on the above-mentioned dates -with 0.5 cc., 0.5 cc., and 1 cc. of typhus egg-culture vaccine “Asid” -(Anhaltinische Serumwerke, Berlin) and 5 persons were immunized with -typhus vaccine “Giroud” (produced by the Pasteur Institute, Paris, from -rabbit lungs), 1 cc. each. - -_25 Feb 44_: - -Twenty persons (15 immunized and 5 for control) were infected by -subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. fresh typhus-infected blood. - -Donor: G * * * Nr 713, 36 years old (6th day of sickness) - - Strain Bu IV/Passage 13. - -All those infected fell sick with slight to serious typhus. - -_5 Apr 44_: - -Chart and case history completed. - -_25 Apr 44_: - -The experimental series was concluded— - -5 deaths (1 Asid, 1 Weimar, 3 Control). - - DR. DING - -_8 Mar 44_: -_18 Mar 44_: - - _Typhus Vaccine, Experimental Series VIII_ - -Suggested by Colonel M. C. of the Air Corps, Oberstarzt Professor Rose -the vaccine “Kopenhagen” (Ipsen-Murine vaccine), produced from mouse -liver by the National Serum Institute in Copenhagen, was tested for its -compatibility on humans. - -20 persons were vaccinated for immunization by intramuscular injection -into the Musculus Glutaeus Max. on the following dates: 8 Mar 44, 0.5 -cc.; 13 Mar 44, 0.5 cc.; 18 Mar 44, 1.0 cc. - -10 persons were contemplated for control and comparison. - -4 of the 30 persons were eliminated _before_ the start of the artificial -injection, because of intermittent sickness. - -_16 Apr 44_: - -The remaining experimental persons were infected on 16 Apr 44 by -subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. typhus sick fresh blood. Donor: W * * -* No. 763, 27 years old (6th day of sickness) - - Strain Bu VII/Passage 1. - -The following fell sick: - -_a._ 17 persons immunized; 9 medium, 8 seriously. - -_b._ 9 control persons; 2 medium, 7 seriously. - -_2 Jun 44_: - -The experimental series was concluded. - -_13 Jun 44_: - -Chart and case history completed and sent to Berlin. - -6 deaths (3 Kopenhagen, 3 Control). - - DR. DING - -_26 May 44_: -_12 Jun 44_: - - _Taking of Blood to Produce Typhus Convalescent Serum (FFRS)_ - -To produce FFRS, 6,500 cc. blood were taken from 15 typhus convalescents -between the 14th and 21st day after the fever had subsided, and sent by -courier to the SS Main Operational Headquarters, office group D, office -XVI (blood conservation) attn: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ellenbeck, in -Berlin-Lichterfelde. - - DING - -_22 May 44_: -_16 Jun 44_: - - _Control of Blood Plasma_ - -By order of the Military Academy for Medicine, Berlin, 44 capsules of -blood plasma were tested on 44 experimental persons for their -compatibility on humans. - -_19 Jun 44_: - -Test protocol sent to the senior hygienist of the Reich Medical Office -of the SS and Police, Berlin. - - DING - -_17 Jul 44_: -_27 Jul 44_: - - _Typhus Vaccine, Experimental Series IX_ - -The typhus vaccine “Weimar”, produced by the Division for Typhus and -Virus Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, -Weimar-Buchenwald, was tested according to orders for its efficacy on -humans. - -This vaccine was produced from rabbit lungs according to the process -Durand-Giroud. It contains virus (Rickettsia-Prowazeki) of -self-isolating types deadened and suspended in 2/00 Formol. - -20 persons were immunized on the following dates with 1 cc. each: 17, -22, 27 July 1944. - -The vaccinations were made subcutaneously on the right or left upper -arm. - -For comparison 20 persons were immunized at the same time with “Weigl” -vaccine, produced from lice by the Army High Command in Krakow according -to regulations. - -Furthermore, 20 persons were provided for control purposes. - -_6 Sep 44_: - -The 60 experimental persons were infected by subcutaneous injection of -1/10 cc. fresh typhus-infected blood each into the right upper arm. - -All persons fell sick as follows: - -_a._ “Weimar”—9 slightly, 7 slightly to medium, 4 medium. - -_b._ “Weigl”—6 slightly to medium, 8 medium, 6 seriously. - -_c._ Control—1 medium, 19 seriously. - -_17 Oct 44_: - -The experimental series was concluded. - -_4 Nov 44_: - -Chart and case history completed. - -24 deaths (5 “Weigl”, 19 Control). - - DR. SCHULER - -_13 Oct 44_: -_31 Oct 44_: - - _Taking of Blood to Produce Typhus Convalescent Serum (FFRS)_ - -To produce FFRS, 20.8 liters of blood were taken from 44 typhus -convalescents between the 14th and 21st day after the fever had -subsided, and sent by courier to the SS Main Operational Headquarters, -office group D, office XVI (blood conservation)—SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. -Ellenbeck, Berlin-Lichterfelde. - - SCHULER - -_26 Oct 44_: - -Special experiment on 6 persons according to instructions of SS -Oberfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and RKPA (report on this orally). - - SCHULER - -_13 Nov 44_: - - _Therapeutic Experiment with Typhus Vaccine_ - -By order of the senior hygienist of the Waffen SS of 12 August 44, it is -to be determined whether the course of typhus can be tempered by the -intravenous or intramuscular injection of typhus vaccine. - -For the experimental series 20 persons were considered, of these, 10 for -intravenous injection (Series A), 10 for intramuscular injection (Series -B) and, in addition, 5 persons for control. - -On 13 Nov 44, the 25 experimental persons were infected by subcutaneous -injection of 1/10 cc. each fresh typhus-infected blood. All persons fell -sick as follows: Series A—10 serious; Series B—1 medium 9 serious; -Control—5 serious. - -_22 Dec 44_: - -The experimental series was concluded. - -_2 Jan 45_: - -Chart and case history completed. - -19 deaths (9 Series A, 6 Series B, 4 Control). - - DR. SCHULER - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-257 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 283 - - EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ERWIN SCHULER, 20 JULY 1945, - CONCERNING TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS - - * * * * * - - _Hoven’s Share in Block 46_ - -In February 1942 the order to conduct typhus experiments came through. I -was chosen to carry out these experiments. Since I had my office in -Berlin, a deputy had to be appointed for my absence in Buchenwald. -Reichsarzt SS Dr. Grawitz, in agreement with the leading doctor of the -concentration camps, Lolling, appointed SS 1st Lt. Dr. Hoven as station -doctor at Buchenwald. My presence in Buchenwald always lasted only a few -days, while the experiments and the typhus epidemic lasted about 10 -weeks. - -Dr. Hoven had orders to get the prisoners (professional criminals -sentenced to death), who had been released for the experiments from the -Reich Security Office and the chief of the concentration camps, for -vaccination or infection after an examination of their physical fitness. - -As deputy, he often ordered Dr. Plaza to take over the guard of Block -46. Dr. Plaza, in addition, continued to work independently under Kapo -Dietzsch. - -For experiments that did not result in death, such as the effectiveness -of yellow fever vaccine, 200 to 300 volunteers stood in readiness. This -I know from rosters that Dietzsch showed me once. Such experiments did -not only take place in the block but also, in a certain case, in the -camp itself. For that experiment about 80 Dutchmen were taken; they did -not have to work and they were given extra rations. For that they had to -have their temperature taken three times daily and every two days they -had to give 10 cc. blood for a blood count. - -Hoven worked as my deputy until my permanent entrance into Buchenwald in -August 1943. In September he was arrested. - -In the year 1942 he had to work a lot by himself, since I contracted -typhus and after that was sent to a rest home. Immediately after that I -was detailed to the Pasteur Institute in Paris. During this time the -sick reports bore the signature of Hoven or Plaza. - - [Signed] DR. SCHULER - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-571 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 285 - - 1943 WORK REPORT FOR DEPARTMENT FOR TYPHUS AND VIRUS RESEARCH - - Weimar-Buchenwald, January 1944. - -Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS -Department for Typhus and Virus Research - - _Work Report for the Year 1943_ - -I. _Division for Typhus and Virus Research, Clinical Section_ - -1 December 42 to 20 Experiment with typhus vaccines “EM” of the Behring - February 43 Works, carried out on 20 experimental subjects. -10 January to 20 Experiment with typhus therapeutics, Acridine and - February Methylene Blue, carried out on 47 experimental - subjects. -10 January to 17 May Tests with yellow fever vaccines, carried out on 435 - experimental subjects. -25 January to 28 Experiment with typhus vaccines “Riga” and - April “Zuerich,” carried out on 40 experimental - subjects. -24 March to 20 April Performance of a large-scale experiment according to - the scheme of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen - SS, carried out by SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer - Dr. Mrugowsky, with smallpox, typhoid, paratyphus - A and B, cholera, typhus, and diphtheria, on 45 - experimental subjects. -31 March to 11 April Experiment with typhus therapeutics Acridine - Granulate and Rutenol, carried out on 40 persons. -11 April to 24 May Preliminary experiments with fresh blood infected - with typhus for the purpose of investigating an - infallible method of infection, carried out on 41 - persons. -11 April—not yet Infections with typhus so far applied to 47 persons. - terminated -24 April to 1 June Experiment with typhus therapeutics Acridine - Granulate (2) and Rutenol (2) carried out on 40 - experimental subjects. -28 May to 9 Experiment with typhus vaccines “Asid,” - September “Asid-Adsorbat,” and “Weigl” carried out on 70 - persons. -10 June to 8 August Experiment with typhoid therapeutics “Otrhomin,” - carried out on 40 experimental subjects. -8 November—not yet Gangrene—high immunization experiment, carried out - terminated on 15 experimental subjects. -19 November—not yet Experiments with burns by means of phosphorus rubber - terminated incendiary bombs carried out on 5 persons. -21 November—not yet Control of blood conservation. - terminated -23 December to 31 Special experiment carried out on 4 persons. - December - -II. _Division for Typhus and Virus Research, Production of Vaccines_ - -10 August Termination of the exterior alterations on the - prisoners’ Block 50 in Buchenwald concentration - camp. -16 August Opening of the Division for Typhus and Virus - Research. Transfer of the head of the department, - SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding to Buchenwald. - Beginning of the preliminary work for production. -20 September First infection of 3 guinea pigs with - typhus-infected blood, strain Bu I. Up to the end - of the year 8 successful infections from this - strain and positive adaptation of the strain to - mice (with only 2 infections due to lack of these - experimental animals), as well as to the lungs of - rabbits through mice with the brains of guinea - pigs as starting material. -24 September Isolation of the strain Bu II on 3 guinea pigs with - typhus-infected blood. After successful adaptation - at the end of the year 8th infection. Performance - of 4 infections of mice. Great quantities of - standard type Rickettsia. Furthermore successful - adaptation of the strain Bu II to the lungs of - rabbits through mice. -9 October Due to lack of mice experiment to adapt the mixed - strains Bu I and Bu II directly from infected - brains of guinea pigs to the lungs of rabbits. At - the end of the year this strain is contained fully - virulent in the 6th infection of rabbits. Since - the 5th infection, particularly, great quantities - of Rickettsia on the lungs of rabbits. The results - of the direct adaptation experiments are being - checked by pathogenic and skin virulence tests. -12 October Reported to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS - that the experiments for the breeding of - Rickettsia strains on the lungs of rabbits were - successful and production was only handicapped by - the lack of the refrigerator and of the Calabeius - meat-triturator model. -22 October Isolation and transfer to guinea pigs of the strain - Bu IV of subjects infected with typhus after - strain Bu III had died during the first infection. - In this case the lack of mice was once more - especially noticeable. -First half of Outbreak of an epidemic among 375 recently supplied - November mice to which 289 animals succumbed within a few - days. As the remaining mice were not healthy - either, they were killed. -11 November Vaccination of rabbits with infected lungs of mice. - Later on, performance of two more infections of - rabbits. Experiments are a complete success; large - quantities of Rickettsia with well-developed - bacilli-shaped elements on the lungs of the - rabbits. -30 November Successful direct adaptation of the strain Bu IV - from the brains of infected guinea pigs to the - lungs of rabbits. After performance of another - infection of rabbits, mixing of the strain with - the strain Bu I and Bu II. All infections continue - to be successfully carried out. -4 December Experiment, by making use of the night frosts and by - using the handshake technique without refrigerator - and without Calabeius, to produce the first sample - of vaccine. For this purpose, lungs of rabbits of - the 5th or 6th infection series of the mixed - strain Bu I and Bu II, which are rich in - Rickettsia, were used. -14 December Centrifugation of the suspension produced on 4 - December. -15 December Starting of the refrigerator which had arrived in - the meantime. Result of the examination of the - sediment of the vaccine produced on 4 December: - after 2 hours of centrifugation great quantities - of Rickettsia (bacilli-shaped, point-shaped, - dumbell-shaped). The sterility control proved the - suspension free from bacteria. -17 December 4 guinea pigs were given intraperitoneal injections - of 1 cc. of vaccine each, in order to check - whether the vaccines produced on 4 December agreed - with them. The guinea pigs did not show any - alterations of voracity nor of temperature and - were still alive at the end of the year. -24 December Vaccination of a series of 10 guinea pigs, with our - own vaccine and Giroud vaccine, in order to infect - them later on with typhus-infected blood. -29 December The reactions for skin virulence according to Giroud - show a virulence of the suspension at a dilution - of 1:2.000 to 1:4.000. - -For the performance of the breeding experiments 56 mice, 134 guinea -pigs, and 112 rabbits were used up to the present date. - -In the serological department 1226 proteus OX 19 agglutinations, 3 -Gruber-Widal tests, and 4 Takata-Ara reactions were performed for the SS -infirmary and Buchenwald concentration camp and its branch camps. - -For our own requirements up to this date, about 1,500 cubic cm. of -typhoid-paratyphus B deposits have been produced, in order to reduce the -power of resistance of the experimental animals. - -III. _Inspections of the Division for Typhus and Virus Research_ - -8 February Inspection of the clinical section by Oberstabsarzt - Dr. Eyer of the Institute for Typhus and Virus - Research of the Army High Command, Krakow and by - Oberstabsarzt Dr. Schmidt of the Army Medical - Inspectorate. -24 August Inspection of the department by the Director of the - Central Building Section of the Waffen SS and - Police, SS Obersturmfuehrer Huehnefeld, and - discussion of necessary improvements. -26 August Inspection by the Higher SS and Police leader in - Kassel, SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the - Waffen SS, the Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont, and - by the commandant of Buchenwald concentration - camp. -3 September Inspection by the head of the Hygiene Institute of - the Waffen SS, SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer Dr. - Mrugowsky. -29 September Inspection by the Chief of Office D III in the SS - Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), SS - Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Lolling and Professor Dr. - Schenk. - -IV. _Official Trips by the Head of the Division for Typhus and Virus -Research_ - -28 February to 6 SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to Paris - March for the purchase of laboratory equipment for the - Division for Typhus and Virus Research - Weimar-Buchenwald, and for the Hygiene Institute - of the Waffen SS. -27 April to 1 May Once more on detached service to Paris for the same - purpose. -25 June to 15 August Ordered sick leave at Sellin on Ruegen. -27 August Conferences with the Zeiss firm at Jena, with the - Landesgewerbearzt and in the University Library. -4 September Inspection in the village of “X” with the Head of - the Hygiene Institute, SS Standartenfuehrer - Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky, with the Standortarzt of - the Waffen SS Weimar-Buchenwald, and with the - adjutant of the commandant of the Buchenwald - concentration camp. -8 September Another inspection in the village of “X”. -16September Purchase of laboratory requisites at Jena, - conference with the Zeiss firm concerning the - alteration of 2 microscopes. -23 September Purchase of laboratory requisites at Erfurt. -29 September to 4 Conference in Berlin with the Head of the Hygiene - October Institute of the Waffen SS, SS Standartenfuehrer - Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky. -13 October Inspection at “Dora” and “Laura” with the commandant - of the Buchenwald concentration camp. -21 October Inspection of the branch commands Leipzig - Wernigerode, Schoenebeck, and “Dora” with the camp - commandant. -25 October to 15 On detached service with the German Hygiene - November Institute for the Eastern Territories in Riga, and - subsequently conference with the Madaus firm in - Dresden at the instance of SS Obergruppenfuehrer - and General of the Waffen SS von Woyrsch. - - SS Sturmbannfuehrer. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-121 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 293 - -LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO HIRT, 15 NOVEMBER 1943, CONCERNING PRISONERS TO BE - USED AS EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS FOR TESTS WITH TYPHUS VACCINE - - 15 November 1943 - _Secret_ - -To: Professor Dr. Hirt -Anatomical Institute of the Reich University -Strasbourg - -On 13-11-43, an inspection was made of the prisoners that were furnished -to me in order to determine their suitability for the tests which have -been planned for the typhus vaccines. Of the 100 prisoners that have -been selected in their former camp, 18 died during transport. Only 12 -prisoners are in such a condition that they can be used for these -experiments, provided their strength can first be restored. This should -take about 2-3 months. The remaining prisoners are in such a condition -that they cannot be used at all for these purposes. - -I might point out that the experiments are for the purpose of testing a -new vaccine. Such experiments only lead to fruitful results when they -are carried out with normally nourished subjects whose physical powers -are comparable to those of the soldiers. Therefore, experiments with the -present group of prisoners cannot yield usable results, particularly -since a large part of them are apparently afflicted with maladies which -make them unsuitable for these experiments. A long period of rest and of -good nourishment would not alter this fact. - -I request, therefore, that you send me 100 prisoners, between 20-40 -years of age, who are healthy and who are so constituted physically that -they furnish comparable material. - - Heil Hitler! - STABSARZT PROF. DR. E. HAAGEN - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-122 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 298 - - LETTER DICTATED BY ROSE, ADDRESSED TO HAAGEN, 13 DECEMBER 1943, - CONCERNING EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS FOR VACCINE EXPERIMENTS - -Professor Rose, Chief Surgeon. - - O. U., 13 December 1943. - -Stabsarzt Professor Haagen -Institute of Hygiene of the Reich University -Strasbourg, Alsace, Adolf Kussmaulstrasse 3 - -Dear Herr Haagen, - -Many thanks for your letter of 8 December. I regard it as unnecessary to -make a renewed special request to the SS Main Office in addition to the -request you have already made. I request that, in procuring persons for -vaccination in your experiment, you requisition a corresponding number -of persons for vaccination with the Copenhagen vaccine. This has the -advantage, as also appeared in the Buchenwald experiments, that the -testing of various vaccines simultaneously gives a clearer idea of their -value than the testing of one vaccine alone. - - With best wishes, - Heil Hitler! - Yours - (Dictated by Prof. Rose and signed after his departure) - By order - [Signed] SCHWARZE - Private, 1st Class (Med. Corps) - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-123 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 303 - - LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO HIRT, 9 MARCH 1944, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS - CONDUCTED WITH TYPHUS VACCINE AND REQUESTING EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS - - 9 May 1944 - -Main Office SS -through Professor Dr. Hirt -Anatomical Institute of the Reich University Strasbourg - -I enclose herewith a carbon copy of a paper on our experiments with a -dry typhus vaccine. The paper was sent to the Chief of the Luftwaffe -Medical Service as a manuscript, with the request for permission to -publish it. It constitutes a report concerning further experiments with -a typhus vaccine which has not been made sterile by chemical agents or -by heating. As may be seen from the results, it has been possible to -produce a vaccine which provides not only an antitoxic immunity but also -a definite anti-infection immunity which is of particularly practical -significance. However, it is clearly pointed out that vaccination is -followed by a rather long fever reaction and, therefore, its -introduction cannot yet be recommended. Further tests are now in -progress to alter the vaccine so that, without losing its antigenic -property, it will produce so weak a reaction that no general -indisposition will result. These tests will be made by reducing the dose -or by storing the vaccine for a longer interval. - -To carry out this research, experimental subjects will again be needed. -I, therefore, again request that subjects be furnished to me for this -purpose. In order to obtain results which are accurate and which can be -statistically evaluated, I ask that 200 persons be furnished to me for -inoculation. I may point out that they must be in a physical condition -similar to that of members of the armed forces. - -It is highly desirable that I again be permitted to carry out these -experiments at camp Natzweiler. - - PROFESSOR DR. E. HAAGEN - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-139 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 317 - - LETTER FROM DR. GRUNSKE TO HAAGEN, 7 MARCH 1944, CONCERNING REPORTS ON - YELLOW FEVER VIRUS EXPERIMENTS REQUESTED BY A JAPANESE MEDICAL OFFICER - -High Command of the Navy -Flottenarzt Dr. Grunske - - Berlin, 7 March 1944 - Landgrafenstr. 12 - Tel: 24 9591 Ext 241 - -To: Professor Dr. Haagen -Strasbourg -Hygiene Institute of the University - -Dear Professor: - -In connection with my letter of 26 February and your long distance -telephone call of 6 March, I must advise you that the Japanese -Oberstabsarzt has in the meantime contacted Oberstarzt Professor Dr. -Rose of the Luftwaffe Medical Service, and that the latter has promised -to secure for him from Strasbourg all the accounts concerning the yellow -fever virus experiments which are important to him. Therefore, -Oberstartz Dr. Rose will give you further details. I therefore ask that -the matter be considered closed between us. - - With fraternal esteem and - Heil Hitler! - Respectfully yours - [Signed] DR. GRUNSKE - Flottenarzt - - TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 16 - ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 12 - - EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR OTTO LENZ, DIRECTOR OF THE - ROBERT KOCH INSTITUTE IN BERLIN - - * * * * * - -Professor Rose was not the “typhus expert” of the Robert Koch Institute, -nor did he work on typhus there. But he was the Chief of the Department -of Tropical Medicine, and was in this capacity, with the exception of -one field of research, (that of the transmission of dysentery and -typhoid bacilli by insects) exclusively concerned with tropical diseases -and parasites (insects). - -The typhus expert of the institute was rather Professor Haagen, the -Chief of the Virus Division. After his departure, following his -appointment to the Chair of Hygiene at Strasbourg University, Professor -Gildemeister, the then President of the Institute, continued the -research on typhus. - -Thus, various physicians, among them Dr. Ding, received instruction on -typhus from Professor Haagen in the Virus Division, but _not_ from -Professor Rose. - -Owing to the destruction by air raids of many of the files of the Robert -Koch Institute, I can no longer ascertain whether Professor Rose was -associated with the decisions taken on typhus experiments. - -Several of the men who were at that time departmental chiefs, however, -assured me unanimously, that this had _not_ been the case. - - * * * * * - -Finally, nothing is known of Professor Rose’s having had the opportunity -to become aware of Geheimrat Lockemann’s chemo-therapeutical experiments -(chemo-therapy of abdominal typhoid with otrhomin). The only research on -abdominal typhoid carried on in Rose’s department consisted of the -experiments on the role of the house fly in the transmission of -dysentery caused by bacteria and of abdominal typhoid. - - * * * * * - - TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 46 - ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 20 - -EXTRACT FROM A CERTIFIED STATEMENT, 4 MARCH 1947, OF J. OERSKOV, M. D., - DIRECTOR OF THE STATE SERUM INSTITUTE IN COPENHAGEN - - * * * * * - -In answer to questions asked us about the visit of Professor Rose, I can -say the following: - -to 1. Did Professor Rose, when he visited the Institute at the end of -September 1943, request the Copenhagen Institute to take up the -production of the typhus vaccine from R. pr. in order to help overcome -the great shortage of typhus vaccine? Yes. - -to 2. Was this request refused by Director Oerskov for valid reasons? -Yes. - -to 3. Was R. then taken to visit Dr. Ipsen’s section? - -I do not remember this, but it is apparent from Dr. Ipsen’s experimental -records that Professor Rose actually was in Dr. Ipsen’s laboratory on 24 -September and probably discussed these problems with him. Unfortunately, -Dr. Ipsen is at present in America on a study trip and will not return -before June or July. It is, however, apparent from our records that if -Profesor Rose ever received samples of our vaccine it could only have -been a small quantity, and neither I nor Dr. Ipsen’s colleagues have -ever heard anything of the possible effects of our vaccine. - -Through the Danish Red Cross we sent our vaccine to Danish as well as to -Norwegian prisoners of war camps, so that the vaccine was given only to -Danish or Norwegian colleagues. We heard from Danish colleagues that the -effect of these vaccinations was good. - -I can add that I am grateful to Professor Rose because he probably -helped to prevent our Institute’s being compelled to take over the -production of typhus vaccine. It is entirely unpredictable what -calamities might have arisen if we had been forced to take up the -production of this vaccine. - - [Signed] J. OERSKOV - Director of the State Serum Institute - Not. K. J. No. 1974/47 - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS EUGEN KOGON[63] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: Now, will you please explain to the Tribunal in your own -words exactly how these typhus experiments were carried out. - -WITNESS KOGON: After 40 to 60 people, sometimes up to 120, had been -detailed for a series of experiments, one-third of them were separated, -and the other two-thirds were either vaccinated with a protective -treatment, or it was otherwise administered to them, if it was a -chemical therapeutical treatment. Those people who were protected -against typhus remained in Block 46 for several weeks until their -infection with Rickettsias Prowazeki, the typhus agent. The first -selection, that is to say, the first third, was also infected together -with them. They served as so-called control persons, with the help of -whom it was possible to ascertain whether the infection took and what -course the disease took in their cases, so that this course could be -compared with that of those who had been vaccinated and then infected. -The infection was performed in various ways. Either typhus was -transferred through fresh blood injected intravenously or -intramuscularly. At the beginning, too, by scratching the skin, or by -making a small incision in the arm. In the initial stages, two cubic -centimeters of fresh blood infected with typhus were used for the -infection, unless the infection concerned was one with an infectious -solution. Two cubic centimeters of fresh blood containing typhus were -then usually injected into the veins. Later on that dosage was reduced -to 1/20 of 1 cubic centimeter because the large quantity of 2 cubic -centimeters would penetrate any security achieved by the vaccination. -Even 1/20 of a cubic centimeter of fresh blood containing typhus was -usually enough to produce a very high degree of typhus if injected into -the veins. In the course of years the typhus cultures used at Buchenwald -had been cultivated from man to man and had increased their strength, -their virulence to a considerable degree, so that the very smallest -quantity was sufficient. I suggested to Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding in -1944 that in order to increase the scientific value he should reduce the -quantity of these injections to the extreme minimum so that the -so-called threshold value could be ascertained—in other words, so that -the artificial infection should be as similar to normal infection by -lice as possible. He turned this suggestion down because he believed -that then no convincing proof could be achieved of the real strength of -the protective treatment used. A third category of the experimental -persons was used to maintain the typhus cultures. Those were the -so-called passage persons, amounting to three to five persons per month. -They were merely infected for the purpose of ensuring a constant supply -of fresh blood containing typhus. Very nearly all those persons died. I -do not think I am exaggerating if I say that 95 percent of these cases -were fatal. - -Q. Witness, do you mean to say that they deliberately infected three to -five persons a month with typhus just to have the viruses alive and -available in blood? - -A. Just for that particular purpose. - -Q. Can you tell the Tribunal approximately how many of those persons -died who were infected just to keep the viruses alive? - -A. From the so-called passage persons, as I have already said, between -three to five were used per month, that is, when I was working for Dr. -Ding-Schuler—every month until the end of the Buchenwald concentration -camp. That is to say, from April 1943 until March 1945. As far as the -previous period is concerned, I only know that passage persons had been -used, but I do not know the figures. - -Q. Now, Witness, were experimental persons also infected with lice? - -A. As far as I know, only one single experiment took place in Buchenwald -where an original infection with typhus was performed with lice. The -infected lice were brought from the OKH Institute in Krakow by a courier -and were taken to Block 46. There they were kept in small cages which -were applied to the thighs of the experimental persons, and a number of -persons, I do not know how many, were infected. Some of our comrades let -a few lice escape in a room of Block 46, but they kept them under -control and reported to the Kapo that infected lice had escaped from the -cages. Kapo [inmate trusty] Arthur Dietzsch immediately reported this to -the camp physician, Dr. Hoven, who was deputizing at that time for Dr. -Ding-Schuler. Dr. Hoven, following Dietzsch’s advice, then ordered the -destruction of these infected lice. A second delivery from Krakow was -also burned because it was not desired that experiments should be -performed which entailed such danger for the camp. - - * * * * * - -Q. Can you tell the Tribunal whether these experimental subjects -suffered to any appreciable extent during the course of these typhus -experiments? - -A. There we must draw a strict dividing line between the general mental -condition of such experimental persons and the physical condition caused -by this disease. Every man in the camp knew that Block 46 was a dreadful -place. Only a very few people in the camp had an exact idea of what was -going on in Block 46. A dreadful horror seized anyone who was brought -into any kind of connection with this block. If people were selected and -taken to Block 46 through the sick bay, then they knew that the affair -was a fatal one. The untold horror which was attached to this block made -things even worse. Apart from this, it was generally known in the camp -that Kapo Arthur Dietzsch exercised iron discipline in Block 46. There -the cat-o’-nine-tails really ruled supreme. Everyone, therefore, who -went to Block 46 as an experimental person did not only have to expect -death, and under certain circumstances a very long drawn out and -frightful death, but also torture and the complete removal of the last -remnants of personal freedom. In this mental condition these -experimental persons waited in the sick bays for an unknown period of -time. They waited for the day or for the night when something would be -done to them; they did not know what it would be, but they guessed that -it would be some frightful form of death. If they were vaccinated, then -sometimes the most horrible scenes took place, because the patients were -afraid the injections were lethal. Kapo Arthur Dietzsch had to restore -order with iron discipline. After a certain period, when the actual -illness had set in after the infection, ordinary symptoms of typhus -would appear, which, as is well known, is one of the most serious -illnesses. The infection, as I have already described to you, became so -powerful during the last two and a half years that the typhus almost -always appeared in its most horrible form. There were cases of raving -madness, delirium, people would refuse to eat, and a large percentage of -them would die. Those who experienced the disease in a milder form, -perhaps because their constitutions were stronger or because the vaccine -was effective, were forced continuously to observe the death struggles -of the others. And all this took place in an atmosphere hardly possible -to imagine. Just what happened to those people who survived the typhus -was something which they did not know during the period of -convalescence. Would they remain in Block 46 to be used for other -purposes? Would they be used as assistants? Would they be feared as -surviving witnesses of the experiments on human beings and therefore -killed? All this was something which they did not know and which -aggravated the conditions of these experiments. - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[64] - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: When did you first learn that Haagen was conducting -experiments on concentration camp inmates? - -DEFENDANT ROSE: That Haagen was performing experiments on concentration -camp inmates? I don’t believe that even today, but I knew that he -carried out vaccinations in concentration camps. I cannot remember when -I first learned of it—probably in 1943. - -Q. Well, you remember the letter in December 1943? - -A. I certainly must have known it by then because there I refer to it. - -Q. Well, did you know about this sordid occasion when Haagen had 18 men -who had been assigned to him die on transport? - -A. I never learned anything about that at the time. I found it out from -the files. I never knew that prisoners were especially taken to these -concentration camps in order to be vaccinated. - -Q. What would you have done if you had known about it? Wouldn’t that -have given you an indication that maybe things were not so nice in the -concentration camp, or maybe proper care wasn’t being taken of the -inmates in these experiments? - -A. If I had learned anything about it I probably would have reacted -exactly as Haagen did. The documents he wrote to the SS office prove -that one cannot conduct any experiments of any consequence on such -unfortunate people. The record is in the documents here. If I had -learned about it, I would probably have reacted in exactly the same way, -perhaps more violently. - -Q. Well, I should have hoped so. - -A. I beg your pardon. I didn’t understand you. - -Q. I should have hoped you would have reacted somewhat more violently -than Haagen apparently did. - -A. That is possible. Our temperaments are different. - -Q. You recall Fraeulein Eyer testified that Haagen sent reports every -three months to the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe. Do you agree to -that testimony? - -A. I heard the testimony. Yesterday in my direct examination I commented -on it. If Haagen had reported every three months I certainly wouldn’t -have forgotten it. I had many things on my mind during the war, but such -an exemplary condition of reporting would certainly have impressed -itself on my memory. It is quite out of the question that the Medical -Inspectorate received a report from Haagen every 3 months. I said -yesterday that I consider Fraeulein Eyer’s testimony quite credible, -because in view of the number of offices with which Haagen was in -connection, and from which he received reports, there were so many -reports and accounts necessary that it is a marvel that Fraeulein Eyer -didn’t say she had to write a report every month. I explained with the -aid of the documents what obligation to report is apparent from the -documents alone. You probably haven’t had an opportunity to read the -record yet, but as soon as the record is ready you will be able to see -that. I don’t think there is any purpose in holding up the proceedings -with that any further. - -Q. And you are quite clear that Haagen never suggested to you that he -was going to carry out infection experiments with typhus after -vaccination? - -A. That is not known to me. - -Q. Let’s have a look at Document NO-1059. This will be marked as -Prosecution Exhibit 490 for identification. Now, will you please read -this letter in a loud and resonant voice? - -A. Perhaps I may see the photostat. - -Q. Will you read the letter aloud, please? - -A. (Reading) - -“29 November 1943—Registered -“To Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Rose -“Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe -“Saalow (Post Office Zossen-Land) -“Dear Herr Rose: - -“Enclosed I am sending you the report about our experiments with -dehydrated typhus vaccine which I promised you several days ago. As I -intend to publish the findings, I have already written the report in -manuscript form. After it has been reviewed, I would like it to be -submitted to the competent authorities for their approval of its -publication in the ‘Zentralblatt fur Bakteriologie’ [Central Periodical -for Bacteriology]. - -“One hundred persons from a local concentration camp were put at my -disposal for immunization and subsequent infection. Unfortunately, these -people were in such a poor physical condition that eighteen of them -already died during transport; the remainder were likewise in such bad -physical shape that they could not be used for inoculation purposes. In -the meantime I have requested 100 additional persons from the SS Main -Office, who should, however, be in a normal physical and nutritional -condition, so that the experiments can be carried out on material which -at least approaches the physical condition of our soldiers. - -“For the time being, we will concentrate on an epidemic culture in the -form of a virus, which we have received from Giroud in the meantime. -This seems to be a very good culture. - - “With best regards, - “Heil Hitler! - “Yours— - -“Enclosure: one report.” - And no signature. - -This is the matter which I discussed yesterday. Haagen’s plan to test -the inoculation reactions to his live and virulent dry vaccine by -prevaccination with dead vaccine to weaken the reaction. That is the -same matter. - -Q. I thought you said about two minutes ago that you didn’t know of the -incident where eighteen of the inmates put at Haagen’s disposal had died -during transport. - -A. Yes, that’s true. That’s what I said. I had forgotten about it. I -thought that I had learned it for the first time from the records. If I -had remembered it, I would, of course, not have exposed myself by -denying it. But now I see this letter. It is obviously a carbon copy. I -must assume that on 29 November 1943 the mail was still fairly normal, -and that I received the letter, since a report is mentioned which I was -to deal with. It was apparently one of Haagen’s papers on his dry -vaccine, on which my knowledge is based and on account of which I can -give any information here at all as to Haagen’s experiments. This -knowledge of mine goes back to these papers of his which he wanted to -publish. - -Q. It would appear that in spite of your fiery temperament your reaction -was even less significant than Haagen’s himself, wouldn’t it? - -A. Since I was not concerned in the matter, as it was something between -Haagen and the concentration camp, there was no reaction in this case. -If somebody else tells me that he has had direct contact with abuses, -then there is no occasion for me to interfere, since that is settled -between the persons concerned. I had nothing to do with the -concentration camps. I did not have to carry out any inoculations there. - -Q. And you insist that the words, “one hundred persons from a local -concentration camp were put at my disposal for immunization and -subsequent infection” really don’t mean subsequent infection at all, but -a subsequent immunization? - -A. With the live and virulent dry vaccine, yes. - -Q. Well, that is certainly an inarticulate way of saying that, isn’t it? - -A. This is correspondence between experts, and they know what it’s -about. - -Q. You state yourself that you are still not sure exactly what Haagen -did, although you were down there in the middle of 1943 and got him back -on the pay roll of the Luftwaffe, and you knew he was staying at the -laboratory and you knew he was going to work on typhus vaccines, but you -now sit here and say you don’t know exactly what he was doing. - -A. Yes. That is true. I have given considerable information here about -Haagen’s work, and I have gone to considerable pains to get it all -together; but of course I can’t give you complete information, simply -because all these experiments were not under our direction and -supervision. - -Q. Herr Professor, the first time the question of subsequent infection -came up was in a letter dated 1944, and you spent the best part of a day -rationalizing “subsequent infection” as meaning something entirely -different—that it was simply a subsequent vaccination, after the man -had already been vaccinated by the dead vaccine. Now, if you were told -on 29 November 1943 that he was going to carry out immunization and -subsequent infection experiments, you certainly would have known as a -matter of fact what he was doing, and you would not need to speculate on -this stand as you did yesterday. These words are entirely susceptible to -the meaning that they mean exactly what they say. - -A. At this stage of his experiments Haagen did not yet have a fully -developed vaccine. He was working exclusively on the problem of -weakening the reaction to this live virulent vaccine. That was the -problem he was dealing with at the end of 1943 and the beginning of -1944. He was looking for various methods of achieving this aim. - -Q. What does he mean in the last paragraph when he says, “For the time -being, we will concentrate on an epidemic culture in the form of a -virus, which we have received from Giroud in the meantime”? - -A. That means that up to that time he had worked with a murine strain, -and that now for the development of the dry vaccine he wanted in -addition to use a strain of Rickettsia-Prowazeki. - -Q. Well, I now want to point out to you again that I am having -considerable difficulty in construing the word “infection” to mean -vaccination. - -A. Yes. I admit that many of these documents are written in a confusing -way, but I believe that I can remember the whole matter adequately -enough to know what the problem is. The vaccine was not developed enough -to be used in vaccination without reaction and then to determine the -effect. There were strong fever reactions, and the problem was how to -avoid this fever reaction. - -Q. Well, why call that infection? - -A. That is a similar condition biologically. An injection of a live, a -virulent vaccine, from the biological point of view, is an infection. -This expression is used often enough, but it is an infection which one -can absolutely control. - -Q. And after receipt of this letter, you then wrote him on the 13th of -December—and this is Document NO-122, Exhibit 298—you sent him the -Copenhagen vaccine, didn’t you, and asked him to test it in his -experiments on his concentration camp inmates, didn’t you, just as they -did in Buchenwald, as you put it? - -A. I beg your pardon? - -Q. You sent him the Copenhagen vaccine after receiving this letter of 29 -November, and asked him to test that in his experiments on concentration -camp inmates. - -A. When this discussion of the Copenhagen vaccine took place, Haagen was -specially interested in it, because it was a murine vaccine; and since -he could not yet control fever reaction with murine vaccine—he only -succeeded in doing that at the beginning of 1944 by storing the vaccine -for a considerable time—he was no longer interested in this Copenhagen -vaccine. But at the end of 1943, when he still had the same difficulties -as Blanc with the reactions with the live murine vaccine, he was -considerably interested in the Copenhagen vaccine. For it was the only -vaccine from murine virus available in Europe at the time. - -Q. You sent it to him, told him to test it just like they did in a -series of experiments in Buchenwald, didn’t you? - -A. I don’t remember that. - -Q. Well, you remember mentioning Buchenwald to Haagen in your letter of -13 December 1943? - -A. Oh, that’s what you mean. Yes, I pointed it out as a parallel, -because several vaccines were tested in Buchenwald for their effect -against infection, and Haagen in Strasbourg wanted to test various -vaccine for their reaction effect. - -Q. You sent that Copenhagen vaccine to Buchenwald also to be tested? - -A. No. - - * * * * * - -Q. Herr Professor, did Mrugowsky ever request you to give him vaccines -for use in typhus experiments? - -A. No. - -Q. Did you ever discuss the question as to whether the louse could be -infected by a vaccinated typhus patient with the defendant Mrugowsky? - -A. That could be possible. This question played an important role for a -time in the discussion about the vaccines and their effectiveness. We -had some old Polish observations available to the effect that if -vaccinated persons received typhus in spite of the vaccination, no -further illnesses could be transferred by such persons. It is possible -throughout, since this question was of considerable importance that -something like that could well have been discussed by Mrugowsky and -myself. We talked a lot about that question. - -Q. Did you ever negotiate with Mrugowsky concerning vaccines to be -tested in Buchenwald? - -A. No. - -Q. Let’s look at Document NO-1754. - -(Document submitted to the witness.) - -MR. MCHANEY: I will ask that document NO-1754 be marked as Prosecution -Exhibit 491 for identification. - -Q. (Continuing) Herr Professor, will you read this document aloud? - -A. “Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS; Journal No. 795/42 - - “Berlin W 15, Knesebeckstrasse 43/44; 16 May 1942 - -“To Oberfeldarzt Professor Dr. Rose; Berlin N. W., Foehrerstrasse 2 - -“Robert Koch Institute -“Dear Professor: - -“The Reich Physician SS and Police has consented to the execution of -experiments to test typhus vaccines. May I therefore ask you to let me -have the vaccines? - -“The other question which you raised, as to whether the louse can be -infected by a typhus patient vaccinated for protection, will also be -dealt with. In principle, this has also been approved. There are, -however, still some difficulties at the moment about the practical -execution, since we have at present no facilities for breeding lice. - -“Your suggestion to use Olzscha has been passed on to the personnel -department of the SS Medical Office. It will be given consideration in -due course. - -“With kind regards, and - - “Heil Hitler! - “Yours - “Dr. MRUGOWSKY, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.” - -There is a footnote to this letter, and I quote: - - “According to telephone inquiry, Dr. Mrugowsky asks to be called - by telephone after Professor Dr. Rose’s return. Dr. Mrugowsky - will not be in Berlin in June. His deputy, Dr. Ding, is - informed. 20 May 1942.” - -This letter shows that Dr. Mrugowsky once informed me that the Reich -Physician SS and Police had consented to the testing of typhus vaccines. -He then asks me to send him these vaccines. I cannot recall what -vaccines he is speaking of. - -Then the question is discussed about lice being infected by typhus -patients vaccinated for protection. - -I admitted that a possibility exists, and I said that this question was -at one time discussed with me. - -The final paragraph says that one of my assistants had been drafted into -the Waffen SS and that I endeavored to have him used in the hygiene -service. - -Q. Herr Professor, let’s go to the footnote first. What are the initials -“B. L.” at the end of that footnote for? Isn’t that Frau Block? - -A. Yes, that would be Frau Block, yes. - -Q. And Frau Block has been in touch with Dr. Mrugowsky. She notes that -Dr. Ding, who I suppose you will admit is Dr. Ding, has been informed. -In view of this note we can pretty well disregard the testimony of your -witness Frau Block before this Tribunal, can’t we? She testified that -you had not corresponded with Mrugowsky, didn’t she? - -A. She said that she could not recollect any correspondence with -Mrugowsky, but you will see from my documents which you have before you, -that this correspondence in effect was so small that it is quite -understandable if she does not remember it in detail. It is a result of -my express order that you have these documents available. I ordered that -in my institute at Pfaffenrode no documents should be destroyed under -any circumstances. There is a written document available to show that I -gave such an order. - -Q. Herr Professor, this letter is in response to one which you wrote to -Mrugowsky, isn’t it? - -A. That’s possible. - -Q. And in the letter that you wrote to Mrugowsky you asked him to have -the Bucharest vaccine tested in Buchenwald, didn’t you? - -A. I told you before in great detail that I could not remember this -matter about the Bucharest vaccine. If you have a letter before you -about this matter, it would, of course, give me a possibility to refresh -my memory. - -Q. I should think this letter would refresh your memory, Herr Professor, -particularly in view of the Ding diary, which has an entry shortly -following the date on this letter where Ding carries out his experiments -with the Bucharest vaccine among others, and says in the diary that the -vaccine was obtained from you; and Mrugowsky in this letter asked you to -send him the vaccines which you have mentioned in your previous letter. -There’s really no doubt about it, is there, Professor? - -A. This possibly becomes apparent. - -Q. And was this person Olzscha mentioned in the letter? Was he to assist -in Buchenwald? - -A. He was to be used in the hygiene service. Since he particularly dealt -with entomological questions, I asked that he should work on these -questions there. - -Q. You got a report from Ding, too, on these experiments testing the -Bucharest vaccine, didn’t you, Professor? - -A. I cannot remember that, and I already told you once that had I -received any such report, I would have drawn the conclusions from it; -and since I did not do that, I think it is improbable that I received -such a report. - -Q. In view of this letter, Doctor, do you want to go back and change -your testimony about the Copenhagen vaccine? Didn’t you also suggest -those experiments, and didn’t you also supply the Copenhagen vaccine for -the experiments in Buchenwald? - -A. No. I have no intention of doing that. - -Q. Well, in that event I will ask that Document NO-1186 be passed up to -you, and this will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 492 for -identification. Will you read this letter aloud please? - -A. “Oberstarzt Professor Rose - - “O. U., 2 December 1943 - -“To Standartenfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky, -“Head of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS -“Berlin-Zehlendorf 6 -“Spanische Allee 10 -“Dear Herr Mrugowsky: - -“At present I have at my disposal a number of samples of a new murine -virus typhus vaccine which was prepared from mice livers and proved in -animal experiments to be quantitatively a thousand times more effective -than the vaccine prepared from mice lungs. In order to decide whether -this first-rate murine vaccine should be used for protective vaccination -of human beings against lice typhus, it would be desirable to know if -this vaccine showed in yours and Ding’s experimental arrangement at -Buchenwald an effect similar to that of the classic virus vaccines. -Would you be able to have such an experimental series carried out? -Unfortunately, I could not reach you over the phone. Considering the -slowness of postal communications I would be grateful for an answer by -telephone. My numbers, all of which go through the same switchboard, -are: Berlin 278313; Rapid Exchange Berlin 90, Zossen 559; Luftwaffe -Exchange 72, there you ask for RLM, L In 14. - -“With best regards - - “Heil Hitler! - “Yours - “Rose” - -The signature which you see on this photostatic copy is, in effect, my -signature. This letter shows that I also informed Mrugowsky about the -Copenhagen vaccine, which I did not remember up to this point. - -Q. And you asked him to test the vaccine in Buchenwald didn’t you? - -A. The question of whether this vaccine can be tested in Buchenwald is -dealt with here. - -Q. Do you see the name “Ding” written at the bottom of the letter? - -A. Yes, it is at the bottom of the page. - -Q. And it appears that the testimony of Kogon was very precise, wasn’t -it, because Ding got a copy of this letter, didn’t he? - -A. Yes. Ding’s utterances do not only refer to my memorandum but also to -the correspondence between Mrugowsky and myself. Apparently it was then -transferred to the Reichsarzt SS. - -Q. Is the date on this letter 2 December 1943 or 12 February 1943—and I -direct your attention to the receipt stamp on the letter which is 21 -February 1944? - -A. The difference between the two dates can be explained by the fact -that a considerable time had elapsed between the sending of my letter -and when this letter finally reached Ding. During this time the -competent agency dealt with the matter of the approval and execution of -the experiments on human beings. - -Q. So you maintain that 2 December 1943 is the correct date on the -letter? - -A. Certainly. That is certainly the correct date. - -Q. On the basis of the two letters which I have exhibited to you, you -will concede that the Ding diary was precisely accurate in what it said, -won’t you? - -A. No, one can’t conclude that just like that. The order to carry out -experiments in Buchenwald could not be issued by me in any way. - -Q. That’s very clear— - -A. That vaccines were requested from me seems to be evident from one -letter. I didn’t remember it and I still don’t remember it now, but on -the basis of this letter one has to consider that fact proved. Then it -also becomes evident that in this case I drew the attention of Herr -Mrugowsky to this vaccine, and that I mentioned a discussion dealing -with human experiments regarding these vaccines. - - * * * * * - -Q. Professor, 6 persons died in this experiment with the Copenhagen -vaccine, didn’t they? - -A. Yes. These were 6 persons who were furnished by the Reich Criminal -Police Office through the regular channels after they were chosen by the -competent agencies. - - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY[65] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. FLEMING: Will you please draw the necessary conclusions from what we -have discovered about Ding’s diary? - -DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: The various erroneous entries in this document and -the facts which the handwriting experts have discovered prove that this -document is not a diary in which entries were made from time to time. -Rather there are long periods of time that are missing, sometimes -periods of more than one year before the entries were made. Pages 1 to -3, I believe, were all written at the same time, and also the subsequent -pages. The document has 27 pages, which were written down on only a few -occasions. That is testified to by the handwriting expert. This explains -the various discrepancies between the entries and the actual facts; for -instance, calling the Robert Koch Institute a Reich Institute, when it -wasn’t, etc. The testimony of a prosecution witness, Balachowsky, -corroborates this affidavit. - -Q. This affidavit is Document NO-484, Prosecution Exhibit 291. -Balachowsky said, under number 29: “The file notes which were copied -into the diary shortly before the collapse, give the precise number of -the pages and the number of the experiments.” Now please continue. - -A. In these words Balachowsky corroborates the fact that this diary, -namely, this diary of Block 46, was drawn up shortly before the -collapse, apparently on several days, consequently the difference in the -typewriters used. Now, as to why he did this I can only conjecture—I do -not know. That there was some reason for making the entries in this form -would appear to be obvious. - -Q. For the explanation of why Ding wrote this diary on Block 46 let me -remind you of Kogon’s testimony, namely, that after 1943 Ding was sure -that the war would be lost. - -A. Yes. That is true. During his testimony Kogon often stated that from -the beginning of 1943 on, Ding made efforts to cover himself. He also -said that from that moment on, the oral assignments that he received -were not sufficient, but that he must insist on receiving written -orders. All the more remarkable is it then that the so-called diary, -this NO-265, says only very infrequently who initiated the various lines -of experimentation. And, if I recall correctly, he does not once say who -ordered them. - -Q. Then do the contents of this diary meet the normal requirements of a -scientist’s diary? - -A. The diary of a scientist has the purpose of setting down the precise -course of the work undertaken. Consequently, all efforts regarding the -initiation and course of experiments should be set down. That is a -perfectly comprehensible custom in all institutes because subsequently -the evaluation of the experiments is based on entries in the scientific -institute’s diary. In this Document NO-265, however, which is allegedly -such a diary of Block 46, there is not one entry regarding the actual -course of the experiments; not even the results of the experiments are -set down there. That is really the least that you could ask of such a -diary. Dr. Kogon thought that the number of fatalities which are set -down with clear precision were a result, to be sure, an unhappy result, -of these experiments. That these events are found lamentable can hardly -be disputed, but it is a false point of view if one orients oneself on -the basis of this result toward something, the purpose of which was -entirely different. The real experimental result can be seen in the -following: as a consequence of the protective vaccination, what happens -during a subsequent case of infection is that firstly, the period of -incubation is prolonged, namely, that period of time which lapses -between the actual infection and the first appearance of the disease. -Secondly, the period of fever is shortened, whereas usually the period -of fever in typhus is 17 days. This protective vaccination reduces it to -12, 10, and even 6 days, depending on the strength of the protective -vaccine. At the same time, the height of the temperature is reduced. In -other words, the symptoms that are associated with fever, which effect -the blood circulation and the heart, as well as those which effect the -central nervous system, are less pronounced or altogether absent after -the protective vaccine. There are various other small clinical -indications which a doctor readily recognizes as a result of the -protective vaccine, and it must be said that as the result of less -serious clinical manifestations, the number of fatalities from typhus is -smaller. That is not a direct but an indirect consequence of -vaccination. Therefore, when Ding asserts in this block diary of Block -46 that the most important result of the experiments was the number of -fatalities, then every doctor will recognize this as such an erroneous -and distorted statement that even if it is made by a doctor so reliable -as Ding, it is completely unworthy of credence. - -Q. I now show you Mrugowsky 9 and I put it in as Mrugowsky Exhibit 23. -It is a photostat of a paper by Dr. Ding on the protective action of -various vaccines on human beings and the course of typhus after -immunization. I do not wish to read the document but simply desire to -bring it to the attention of the Tribunal. Would you care to make any -statement about the inadequate way in which this diary was worked on? -Would you like to say that perhaps Ding was not in a position to carry -on such work? - -A. This paper is 13 pages long. First, there is the manner of the -patient’s tolerance for the vaccine, then the individual points which I -just mentioned as the consequences of the protective vaccination are -gone into. Tables are presented which give statistics in these matters. -There are eight sketches giving graphs showing the results; and at the -very bottom on the next to the last page, in the next to the last -paragraph, there are three lines which say that the fatalities in the -cases of those vaccinated were fewer in number than among those not -vaccinated. That is all mentioned in the summary—there is a final -summary. This is also an indication that he was perfectly capable of -carrying on scientific work. I should like to point out that at the top -of this paper it is mentioned that this work was done in my institute in -Berlin. I say that as an indication that I laid no stress on keeping -these matters secret in any way or that it was my point of view that -these experimental results which had been achieved on the most expensive -of all material, namely, human beings, should be carried through to -conclusion and that results should be made available to all who are -interested. - -Q. The prosecution also charges you with the fact that Ding infected -persons in Buchenwald who had not previously received the protective -vaccination. Would you like to make a statement on that subject? - -A. The following cases come into question here on the basis of Ding’s -diary entries. First of all, there are the so-called “preliminary -experiments”. In Document NO-265, four such preparatory experiments are -mentioned on nonvaccinated persons. These were done in order to -ascertain what method was possible in order to artificially infect human -beings with typhus. I always found that the lay person who had never -concerned himself with these matters assumes it to be a matter of course -that it is always possible to infect a human being with a disease. That, -however, is by no means the case. Even in the case of such a toxic -material as the typhus germ, successful infection can only occur if it -is not directed directly into the blood stream. Unless another way is -chosen, it is usually impossible to bring about infection with such a -disease. Consequently, when such experiments are to be carried out on -human beings—and this is a point of view which I express without any -reference to my own person—then such preliminary experiments cannot be -dispensed with. The second case is the so-called “controlled cases”. - -Q. Did you know anything of these preliminary experiments? - -A. No. I found out about them only through the diary. - -Q. Ding says in his diary under the 20th of February 1942: “Case -histories and curves on the preliminary experiments were sent to -Berlin.” Did you receive this report? - -A. No. Nor do I believe Ding sent it to me, because he was not -subordinate to me in these experiments and it seems, therefore, more -probable to me that he sent them to Grawitz. I, at any rate, did not see -them. - -Q. How can this be reconciled with your letter of 5 May 1942 to Conti -and others which I put into evidence this morning as Mrugowsky 10, -Mrugowsky Exhibit 20? - -A. This letter corroborates what I have just testified to, because the -report on this series of experiments was sent to Grawitz, and I received -Ding’s report to Grawitz from Grawitz himself with the order to rewrite -it in a suitable form, since Grawitz did not wish outside persons to be -able to see, without any further trouble to themselves, that these were -really experiments on human beings with artificial infection. He knew -that, to some extent, I could master the style which he used in his -official communications, whereas he did not know whether Ding could or -not. Consequently, he commissioned me to take Ding’s original report and -to cast it in a suitable form for the purpose of making communications -to the manufacturing firm. This I did, and the result is this document -dated 5 May 1942. - -Q. Your letterhead here is “Reich Physician SS and Police, Chief -Hygienist”. In other words, this is one of the cases in which Grawitz -made use of you when you still belonged to the medical staff of the -Waffen SS? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Why didn’t Grawitz rephrase the letter himself? - -A. There may have been two reasons for that. Firstly, Grawitz was not a -hygienist but an internist and since the letter was being sent to -specialists, namely, to those people who manufactured the vaccines, he -wanted to be sure that the letter contained everything they needed to -know and, on the other hand, no more than they needed to know; secondly, -this is quite in line with his customary manner of working, namely, to -let his collaborators write letters which dealt with their particular -sphere of work, and for this reason, he commissioned me to indite this -letter. - -Q. On this occasion did you not once again express objections to Grawitz -regarding experiments on human beings? - -A. That I did not do because this series of experiments had been -concluded and because I knew that they had been carried out on Himmler’s -specific orders. This was the first series of experiments which had ever -been carried out and it was the reason for my very violent show-down -with Grawitz at that time. I assumed that this job was now completed and -I had no reason to raise further objections. - -Q. Were the vaccines of the Behring Works in an experimental stage when -Dr. Ding used them in his experiments? - -A. No; these vaccines had already been tested in the plant as to a -person’s tolerance for them. All such preparations of the Behring Works -were worked on in their own laboratories before they were sent out into -the world. - -Q. I submit to the Tribunal Mrugowsky 44, and I put it in as Mrugowsky -Exhibit 24. This is an affidavit by Dr. Demnitz, the manager of the -Behring Works, regarding the way in which the vaccines of the Behring -Works were developed and how they were tested in the institute itself. -On the fourth page, it reads: - - “Naturally, the Behring Works also carried out tests to - establish whether the vaccines agreed with human beings for - (_a_) it was necessary to vaccinate those people working in the - typhus laboratories in order to protect them against typhus; - (_b_) it was necessary to protect those people who attended the - experimental animals; and (_c_) the undersigned himself was - vaccinated against typhus on several occasions with vaccines of - the Behring Works. These vaccinations had to be repeated from - time to time. This concerned both German and Russian assistants. - About 20 to 25 persons were employed in our typhus department.” - -And Number 6: “The animal experiments according to Otto proved: (_a_) -the harmlessness and (_b_) the effectiveness or insufficient -effectiveness.” - -It stated previously, “the question of whether the animals showed a -positive reaction is incomprehensible.” It stated also that animal -experiments were carried out in the Behring Works. I submit this -document to prove these were not vaccines which had not been previously -tested, but were vaccines which had gone through the necessary -preliminary and effective testing. Do you remember Kogon’s testimony -that volunteers were used in the first two series of experiments? This -testimony is on page 1,162 of the English transcript and on page 1,197 -of the German transcript. If we base our assumptions on Ding’s diary, -what two series of experiments must these have been for which volunteers -were used? - -A. If we base our statements on Ding’s diary we can only consider that -these two series were, first of all, the preliminary series A which -began on 5 January, and the first series of vaccine experiments with 145 -persons regarding which the letter of 5 May 1942 that was previously -read concerns itself. (_Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky Ex. 20._) This series -began on the next day, namely, on 6 January 1942. Any other experiments -took place at a later date. Thus, when Kogon says that two series of -experiments were carried out with volunteers, it can only be these two -series of experiments. - -Q. The experiments with which the letter of 5 May concerned itself were -carried out on volunteers? - -A. Apparently they were. - -Q. Can you remember the communication of 11 April 1943 to the effect -that the Mateska serum could no longer be used for experiments? - -A. No, I don’t remember that and I consider it out of the question that -I ever received any such communication. In all bacteriology, -particularly in virology, there have been efforts for centuries to breed -live germs which are no longer pathogenic (which do not infect human -beings), in order to use these live germs for the manufacture of -vaccine, namely vaccines with live attenuated strains, because these are -a complete protection against the disease. - -Q. In other words, you want to say that if you had received this -communication, you would have seen to it that further experiments were -carried out with this serum which was no longer so virulent? - -A. I should not like to put it quite that way, but I should certainly -have contacted the person whose institute had developed this strain, -that was the Robert Koch Institute, Professor Gildemeister. However, I -never spoke to him about this matter, and I should like to believe that -he found nothing out about this matter because Gildemeister was one of -our best virus researchers and was very familiar with the value such a -really unique occurrence would have had. - -Q. Did you see reports on the C and D series of experiments concerning -the discovery of a safe method of infection, which were said to have -taken place on the 11th and 13th of April? - -A. No, I only found out about them here while looking through this -document and I also saw that Ding does not assert that he sent a report -on this to Berlin. - -Q. On what further typhus experiment series did you then see reports? - -A. In the diary of Block 46, Document NO-265, Ding says that only in the -case of a few experimental series did he send reports to Berlin, namely -the new experimental series, series I, II, VII, and VIII. I saw the -report on series I, having received it from Grawitz, and as I said -before, I rephrased it in another form, and it constitutes the document -here submitted. Series II was carried out with the vaccine of -Durand-Giroud of the Parisian Institute. That was the vaccine we -intended to produce in our own institute. I really cannot recall ever -having seen this report, but it is possible that I was informed of it by -Grawitz, because I remember that Grawitz one day told me that he was -convinced of the effectiveness of this vaccine and had no further -objection to my suggestion that we manufacture the vaccine according to -that process. The immunization in the course of this series was carried -on by Ding between 19 August and 4 September 1942. From 10 September to -9 October he was in Paris with Professor Giroud to learn his method, and -when he returned, he infected persons and sent the charts to Berlin on -20 November. It was probably then, toward the end of 1942, that Grawitz -spoke to me about this matter. - -Q. Ding was ordered to report to Giroud in Paris in the autumn of 1942, -although, as you have stated, it was already decided at the end of 1941 -to manufacture your own vaccines according to Giroud’s process. Now how -do you explain this delay? - -A. In the infections carried out in series I on 3 March 1942, Ding -infected himself and fell seriously ill of typhus, despite his -protective vaccination. Subsequently, he went on leave to recover, and -when his health was somewhat restored, the business of going to Paris -was discussed, which was only possible in the autumn. - -Q. There were 4 specific fatalities in the control cases. Now you say -that Grawitz probably discussed this matter with you. Did you do nothing -about the fact that there had been fatalities? - -A. When Grawitz spoke to me about this matter, [I] could do nothing -because the series of experiments had already been concluded. But I do -remember pretty clearly the situation in his office there. I remember -that I brought up the matter of these 4 fatalities and told him that -that would probably be the last series that he instigated. He answered -that Himmler had ordered these experiments and that I had specifically -objected to being included in the matter, and consequently no longer had -any right to interfere in his business. - -Q. The report on the typhus experimental series VII was concluded on 7 -September 1943, and when finished a report was sent to Berlin on 9 -September, according to Ding’s diary. Did you see this report? - -A. No. - -Q. But according to Ding’s work report, on the third of September, at a -time when this series was completed but the report not yet written, you -were in Buchenwald, according to this diary, visiting Ding. Did you talk -about this matter then? - -A. This entry is apparently correct. This was the period in which Block -50 was being prepared for the production of the vaccines. Ding writes in -one of his documents that on the 10th of August this block was occupied -and that work in producing the vaccine was begun. Kogon corroborated -that in his testimony. Then 3 weeks after the beginning of this work, I -went to Buchenwald to look over the laboratory and to see how his work -was getting along. Kogon also described at some length how I inspected -the institute, how I went into every room. It was a rather extensive -inspection. I asked many questions, had many conversations with the -inmates there; he further testified that I was with Ding in his room for -only a very brief period of time, and that is also correct. In other -words, at that time he did not submit any material to me. - -Q. Did you know anything else about this experimental series VII? - -A. This series was carried out with a vaccine similar to the Behring -vaccine, manufactured by a different firm. I knew nothing of this -experimental series. - -Q. I submit to the Tribunal as the next document, Mrugowsky 12, and I -put it in evidence as Mrugowsky Exhibit 25. This is an affidavit by Dr. -Karl Ludwig Wolters of Hamburg, from the Asid Works. After the customary -introduction the statement reads: - - “The above person requested the notary to draw up an affidavit - and declared and deposed the following under oath and after - having been duly informed of the meaning of an affidavit: - - “1. The production of typhus vaccines based on the egg culture - process began as early as 1941. Later on, the prescribed process - according to Gildemeister and Haagen was introduced. - - “2. Experiments on animals for the purpose of testing the - manufactured vaccines were taken up simultaneously with the - beginning of the production and were carried out continuously. - The results of the animal experiments were not always clear. The - vaccine tolerance was tested by protective vaccinations of - employees; all employees connected with the typhus department or - who came in contact with employees working therein, were - vaccinated. In addition, all other employees had the privilege - of receiving protective vaccination against typhus on demand and - without charge. In the course of time, about one thousand - employees were vaccinated against typhus.” - -To figures 3 and 4 I simply draw the attention of the Tribunal. Figure 5 -reads: - - “5. As far as I know, there was no correspondence between the - firm of Asid, Serum Institute G.m.b.H., Dessau, on the one hand, - and the former Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, or the - Institute for Typhus and Virus Research at Buchenwald, or its - chief, Dr. Ding, or the Grawitz Agency, on the other hand. - - “6. I made the acquaintance of Dr. Ding during a trip from - Berlin to Krakow. - - “7. I could not say how the test of the typhus vaccines in - question materialized. In any case, as far as I know, I never - discussed that question with Professor Mrugowsky, nor did I - forward the vaccines to him for testing. It is quite possible - that the vaccines reached Dr. Ding through Professor - Gildemeister of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, who - received them in his capacity as expert consultant of the - Ministry of the Interior for the fight against epidemics. - - “8. During a discussion with Professor Mrugowsky in the Hygiene - Institute of the Waffen SS in Berlin, I only talked about - general questions of hygiene concerning the occupied eastern - territories, and I asked for assistance in the work of - developing the serum institute at Kiev. At the same time, the - organization of delousing by the Asid Serum Institute - Koenigsberg was discussed. There also may have been discussion - of general questions in connection with active immunization, - especially against scarlet fever, diphtheria, and tetanus.” - -Then there is the usual conclusion and signature. - -It can be seen from this that the vaccines for this series did not go -via you from Ding; is that true? - -A. Yes. - -Q. According to Dr. Ding’s work report, which is Document NO-571, -Prosecution Exhibit 285, you were present with him on the 3d of -September in Buchenwald. Did you visit Block 46? - -A. Yes. Ding invited me to take a look at Block 46. I went over there -with him; and I remember quite well that I was led to the lower floor of -a stone building, where there were a number of room-like partitions. - -In the first room there were a few men playing cards; Ding told me that -these were typhus convalescents who had survived typhus and who were to -be released. I talked to them and found that their state of health was -good and that the usual after-effects of typhus were no longer in -existence. There were about five or six persons. - -In the second room I saw about three patients lying in bed. I examined -them and spoke to them. They had been transferred to Buchenwald a short -time before from other camps. I think one of them was ill even when he -arrived and the others had fallen ill shortly after their arrival in -Buchenwald, and then were transferred to the typhus station. We are here -concerned with people who fell ill spontaneously. According to Ding’s -entry, there was no series of experiments carried on at that time. - -Q. When visiting Buchenwald, didn’t you talk to Dr. Ding about his -various series of typhus experiments? - -A. No. At that time he had concluded the experimental series number VII -with Asid vaccines as I can see from this document. This was a series -which had a number of fatalities as its result. It is in line with -Ding’s character that he did not speak to me about such a series of -experiments, since he knew what my basic attitude towards this question -was. - -Q. Didn’t you discuss the typhus experiments with Ding on the occasion -of your visit? - -A. No. We didn’t discuss that matter. Our conversation merely dealt with -the work carried on in Block 50 for the production of vaccine, which was -really the purpose of my visit. I think we discussed a number of other -hygienic questions concerning the vicinity of Buchenwald. I knew that -there was a lack of water there from my previous activity; and I am sure -that this was a subject which was discussed. I spent the evening with -Ding in his flat where I met Dr. Hoven, the camp physician of -Buchenwald, and his wife. Mrs. Ding was there, too. It is a matter of -course that we didn’t discuss any technical questions in that circle. We -certainly did not speak about any experiments on human beings. - -In this connection I may perhaps say that this was the only time that I -saw Hoven, who was allegedly Ding’s representative. This was ten days -before Hoven had to end his activity as a camp physician in Buchenwald. - -Q. Were you of the opinion that the typhus experimental series had been -concluded? - -A. Yes. I held that opinion, since it becomes evident from the documents -here that the experimental series of that time had not led to any -disease. The reason was that the strain coming from the Robert Koch -Institute was not pathogenic. Ding did not say that he sent any reports -to Berlin about it; and I, therefore, did not know anything about the -way he worked in Buchenwald as far as it did not concern Block 50. I was -of the opinion that after the second series of experiments, which was -concluded at the end of 1942, no further experiments were planned. - -Q. Well, if you believed that the typhus experiments had been concluded, -the main activity of Dr. Ding would also have had to come to a -conclusion? - -A. No. That is not the case. Seen from my point of view, he was a -bacteriologist; and I was anxiously awaiting the end of this special -mission by Grawitz when Ding would again be fully at my disposal. At -that time, in 1943, he had to carry out the preparations for vaccine -production at Buchenwald. Therefore, the building work had to be -supervised. Block 50 was a bacteriological institute furnished in a very -modern style with a number of special pieces of equipment. Animals had -to be obtained and accommodation made ready for them. There was not only -one kind of animal but four different kinds. It was necessary to obtain -fodder for them. Then a number of other organizational activities were -necessary, which made Ding’s stay in Buchenwald absolutely necessary. - -Q. Ding maintains that he sent a report about the series number VIII of -the typhus experiments. Did you see that in Berlin? It was to have been -sent on the 13th of June 1944. - -A. Well, I heard about this series of experiments only by looking at the -document here. I hadn’t seen or heard of it before. - -Q. In the last entry of his diary, Ding says: “By order of the Chief -Hygienist of the Waffen SS, dated the 12th of August 1944, it was to be -established whether the course of a typhus illness can be mitigated by a -typhus vaccine through intravenous or intramuscular injections.” Did you -ever issue such an order? - -A. No. I repeatedly pointed out that on the basis of the entire -organizational set-up of the Medical Institute of the Waffen SS, neither -as the Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, nor as the -consulting hygienist of the Reich Physician SS and Police, could I order -any experiments to be carried out on inmates because I had just as -little influence on the medical service of the concentration camp as any -other member of the Waffen SS. The matter with which we dealt was -completely different. In the Crimea, in one of the hospitals in the -East, I saw that the internist there was treating typhoid illnesses with -injections of dead typhoid vaccines; and this procedure resulted in -fever in many of the cases. At that time I remembered that literature -dating back to the last World War, when a number of papers were written -on the very same subject, showed that there were similar methods in the -treatment of typhus and typhoid entailing the injection of vaccines. - -During the course of these years when I had to deal closely with, -typhus, I had developed a very definite opinion about the origin and -development of typhus. I was, therefore, of the opinion that in the case -of this illness, which clinically is very close to para-typhus, it would -be quite feasible to make an experiment with that kind of treatment. The -clinical symptoms of typhus and typhoid and stomach typhus are very -similar. If a cure can be achieved with one method, it is to be assumed -that all other types of illnesses of that nature could also be treated -with success using that method. After my return, therefore, I -established contact with a number of internes belonging to the hospitals -which I knew, and wrote them that I had gathered, like experiences. I -quoted passages from literature on that subject, and I said that our new -experiences were the same as our old. I made the suggestion that the -same method be used in the case of typhus by injecting with a protective -typhus vaccine. One might consider that at that time we had just as -little means of combating the severe disease as we have today. We, -therefore, were medically justified in searching for new methods of -treatment. - -Q. Were these to be a series of experiments in the sense in which Ding -carried them out? - -A. That is completely out of the question. There was no reason to do -that at all. In order to perform such an experiment, one could make -tests on a typhus inflicted person using this method, and the worst that -could happen would be that it would not help; but it certainly would not -be necessary to make a certain series of experiments, and I certainly -never gave any such order. - -Q. Did you write to Ding in that sense? - -A. At that time I informed my assistants about this therapy in the case -of contagious diseases, and I am sure that it was a matter of course -that, as epidemic specialists, we had to be informed about such a -possibility, and in this manner we also received knowledge of it. - -Q. You were saying that there would not have been justification for the -experimental theory? - -A. No. - -Q. Well, did you or did you not order such a series of experiments from -Dr. Ding? - -A. Never, at no time. - -Q. Are you of the opinion that Ding started these experiments on his own -initiative? - -A. That is possible. At any rate he did not receive orders from me, and -I don’t know where else he could have received an order. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS DR. EUGEN HAAGEN[66] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. TIPP: Now, Professor, we are coming to the last and perhaps the most -decisive count of the indictment—namely, the typhus experiments, as the -prosecution calls them. Professor Schroeder and Professor -Becker-Freyseng are charged with responsibility for such typhus -experiments. There are two groups of them, according to the prosecution. -On the one hand, those performed in Buchenwald concentration camp by Dr. -Ding-Schuler and to a lesser extent by the defendant Dr. Hoven. The -second group is alleged typhus experiments that you carried out in the -Natzweiler concentration camp. Before we turn to the individual -experiments, Professor, please tell the Tribunal what the hazards of -typhus were during the war, especially in the years 1943, 1944, and 1945 -when this problem became acute? Describe it only to the extent necessary -in order to make your work understandable. - -WITNESS HAAGEN: I shall try to be brief, but in order to understand this -whole problem, one must be given some general information. Typhus is a -very serious infectious disease which, in international medical circles, -is included among the diseases which are of general danger, and it is -consequently subject to international control. In cases of such -hazardous and dangerous diseases, every state felt the moral obligation -to do everything to prevent the outbreak of an epidemic because it is -very difficult to combat and to eliminate the epidemic once it has -broken out. This point of view was embraced, of course, not only by the -government officials, but also by the responsible and interested -scientists and physicians; because we all, of course, knew how -prodigious the danger of typhus is, not only for the waging of the war -but also for the civilian population of the entire world. Typhus is not -only a war epidemic, but it has taken root in the country. It is also a -peacetime epidemic which is enormously difficult to combat. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel, the Tribunal is quite aware that typhus -is a very dangerous disease, that it is a great menace to humans, and -that it was a menace to Germany during the last war, a great danger. I -don’t think it is necessary to elaborate that again. We have heard it -from several witnesses. It’s not denied. - -DR. TIPP: Witness, you heard the Tribunal’s wish. In the opinion of the -Tribunal, the typhus danger for Germany has already been sufficiently -proved. Please go on to the subject itself now. Perhaps you could speak -of the usual preventive measures which are used against typhus, -particularly vaccines. - -WITNESS HAAGEN: There are, in general, two procedures to prevent typhus. -One is what I might call the mechanical procedure, and the other the -biological procedure. In the mechanical procedure we are concerned with -combating the lice—I shall not go into that—but in the biological -procedure we are interested in a protective vaccine. There are various -vaccines available. Now, to get down to the crux of the matter, I must -say that the typhus vaccines which are made from dead typhus virus do -not provide absolute protection against the disease. They may lead to a -milder form of the disease, but the infection itself is not prevented. -Dead typhus vaccine, in other words, has no absolute anti-infectious -effect, which, however, is the main point of any vaccine. - -We developed a live vaccine, not on the basis of our own experiences and -research, but we made use of the experiences of others. I should like to -mention primarily the work of the French typhus research scientists, -Blanc, Baltasar, and assistants Legrer and Lecolle. When vaccinating, a -vaccine must be used which gives anti-infectious protection, and in -general, in the case of virus diseases, successful vaccination is also -achieved only with live virus. Let me mention the examples of smallpox, -influenza, and yellow fever. In all these cases the vaccines are made -from a live virus, but it is true that this virus is mutated, that is, -it is no longer pathogenic to human beings. Its pathogenic -characteristics have been suppressed and have disappeared, but the virus -retains its anti-infectious efficacy. This change is accomplished in two -ways, either by passing the virus through an animal—this is frequently -done—and sometimes effects mutation in the virus and sometimes weakens -the virus. I need not go into that; it would take up too much time. - -Q. If I understand you correctly, Witness, your aim as a scientist was -to develop a vaccine from live virus; in other words from a -nonpathogenic virus which could not cause the disease, but which, -nevertheless, had the antigenic effect, namely the effect of protecting -the vaccinated person against contracting the disease later by -infection. Is that so? - -A. Yes. That is correct. - -Q. Now, Witness, nobody is reproaching you for having produced vaccines, -but it is said that you tested the effectiveness of your vaccines in a -concentration camp. The prosecution called these virulent and you say -they were nonpathogenic. At any rate, that is the way I understood the -reproach of the prosecution; but first before you go into this, Witness, -will you please tell the Court how it happened that you came into -contact with the concentration camp Natzweiler in this matter? - -A. The development of typhus throughout the war was such that typhus no -longer became purely a war epidemic, but because of the many refugee -camps, PW transports, and military transports, typhus was brought into -Germany itself. In the overcrowded camps, especially with lack of -sanitary installations, there was considerable danger from typhus, -particularly where people assembled who came from the East. I have only -to say that in the Auschwitz camp, for example (but also in many other -prisoner camps in the east), there had already been extensive epidemics. -Typhus pressed further and further into Germany. Every closed community -such as a camp is, in itself, a great source of danger of typhus, not -only the danger of an epidemic within the camp, but also an epidemic -that spreads to the surrounding civilian population. Most of the -concentration camp inmates worked outside the camp in factories and they -came into contact with the civilian population, so you can easily see -the danger of contagion. Now, in brief, the camp commandant and the camp -doctor in the course of the spring of 1943 asked me whether they could -have my assistance in combating this danger. - -Q. Witness, a preparatory question first. Did you have any connection -with the SS, with the concentration camp, as such? - -A. I had no connection with the SS or with the concentration camps, or -with any office in charge of them. - -Q. Why did the camp commandant and the camp physician of the Natzweiler -concentration camp turn specifically to you? - -A. As director of the Hygiene Institute I had a rather large sphere of -activity in Alsace, and, of course, it was known in the concentration -camps, too, that my offices were in Strasbourg. For this reason the camp -turned to me for help in many matters, including the obtaining of -vaccines and help in the disinfection of the camp, and so forth, matters -which perhaps we shall deal with later. - -Q. You say then that the camp turned to you because you were the -hygienist in the Alsatian district around Strasbourg? - -A. That is correct. - -Q. You said also that the camp commandant or doctor asked for your -assistance? - -A. Yes, that was an obvious thing for him to do, because I was right -there in Strasbourg. - -Q. You said further that it was roughly in the spring of 1943 that these -requests for assistance were made to you; was there an epidemic in the -camp already at that time, or why did they think they needed your help? - -A. At that time there was no epidemic in the camp, but the general -epidemiological situation was such that an outbreak of typhus was -expected at any moment, especially since transports were continually -coming from the East. These transports were infected with lice and -contained people who were already infected with typhus, and other camps -in the neighborhood had already had their first cases of typhus. - -Q. Professor, what means did you have available to help these camp -physicians? Please limit yourself, first of all your vaccines? - -A. I have already said that there are various vaccines available made -from dead virus, and also those made from live and attenuated virus. It -was very difficult to procure virus at that time. The superior officers -simply could not make the effective vaccines available, and in order to -carry out any plans, all sorts of decrees and orders existed in Germany -for the planning of systematic vaccination should the danger of typhus -arise. - -Q. Now, Witness, you have described your work in the field of vaccine -production, namely, that of producing a live pathogenic virus; did you -begin this developing and working on your own initiative, or did some -other agency refer the problem to you? - -A. Live typhus virus was being manufactured in foreign countries at that -time in great quantities, particularly in France where they had had a -great deal of experience with such live virus. I have already mentioned -Blanc, Baltasar, Lecolle, and Legrer. During the war, protective -vaccines were also made with such live virus in North Africa. There had -already been millions of such vaccinations and, of course, this -permitted experience to be gathered. The fact is that the French, who -saw this great danger, also saw the necessity of such large-scale -vaccines, and they had also had a few fatalities. As I said, we had to -use a virus strain for these vaccinations which, it is true, was alive -and still pathogenic to animals. In other words, a virulent virus, the -pathogenic effect of which on human beings was suppressed to a large -extent; and that is the essence of all live vaccine manufacture, and it -must occupy the central position in our considerations here. You bring -about such mutation only by passing the virus through animals. Every -specialist knows that when the virus is passed through animals it is -attenuated there more than by being cultured or bred, for instance, in -chicken yolks or by being preserved in a vacuum, or at very low -temperatures and only somewhat attenuated in strain. - -Q. Witness, you still haven’t answered my question fully, that is, -whether you carried out this work on your own initiative or on the basis -of an order, directive, or assignment which came to you from elsewhere? - -A. In developing this live typhus vaccine— - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Witness, you can answer that question in a very -few words. Just answer the question propounded to you by your counsel. - -A. This was a research assignment, as I just said, there was no military -or other directive. - -DR. TIPP: Witness, you have already described this morning how research -assignments were distributed, and you told us that, in general, the -assignment was made on the application of a scientist for such an -assignment; now what was the case here, did you work on this problem -first and then receive an assignment or was there already an assignment -in existence and did you then begin to work? - -A. All this work was done entirely on my own initiative. I also saw to -it that I got the necessary research assignment so that I could have the -necessary funds for the work from the Reich Research Council, and then -from the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe. That is where I obtained my -assignment. - -MR. HARDY: Your Honor, before we adjourn may I inquire from counsel how -long the examination will continue, and how long other defense counsels -will take in their examination of the witness Haagen? - -DR. TIPP: I have already said I will need roughly a day and a half. We -have already eliminated some of the questions; I don’t know if I can -finish this afternoon, but I shall not need so much time tomorrow -morning. I cannot tell you how much time my other colleagues will need. - -MR. HARDY: Do I understand Dr. Tipp is going to take the rest of the -day, in spite of the fact that we sit until 5 o’clock? - -DR. TIPP: I shall use all of today. Yes. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does any other defense counsel desire to examine -this witness while he is on the stand? - -DR. TIPP: Dr. Nelte just tells me that he will need a quarter of an -hour, and my colleague Krauss for Rostock, fifteen minutes. - -DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I cannot say definitely now how long I shall -need because I do not know how many of the questions I intend to put to -the witness will be made unnecessary by Dr. Tipp’s examination. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The Tribunal is only asking for an estimate. - -DR. FRITZ: One hour. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel, during the noon recess will you instruct -your witness to answer your questions directly and simply without -expostulating on matters about which, while scientific and important, -the Tribunal has already been advised. Kindly instruct him and explain -to him how to answer these questions. - - * * * * * - -DR. TIPP: Professor, before the recess you said that you began your work -in the field of typhus on your own initiative, and that in the course of -this work you obtained research assignments from the Medical Inspector -of the Luftwaffe as well as the Reich Research Counsel; now I ask you, -in your applications made before the various assignments were issued, -were any details given about the work which you planned to carry out or -the work which you had already carried out? - -WITNESS HAAGEN: No details were given, of course, merely the problem as -such was dealt with. - -Q. You have already described to the Tribunal your work on this problem; -it was to find a vaccine produced from live virus, a virus no longer -pathogenic to human beings which, however, contained the qualities of -the virus. - -A. Yes. That is true. Our work was limited to the development of a live -vaccine, and this work was based on the great experiences of foreign -scientists, especially the French scientist Blanc; the technical side -was always carried out in animal experiments. - -Q. Now, Witness, did you succeed in finding a vaccine of the type -described? - -A. Yes. We did succeed in developing such a vaccine from a so-called -murine typhus virus strain, that is, from rat typhus. The weakening was -brought about through animal experiments, through cultivation in chicken -eggs, and thirdly through a conservation process. - -Q. Was this vaccine then tested for its effectiveness and if so, how? - -A. Yes. The vaccine was tested for its effectiveness. First, of course, -by animal experiments for its immunizing qualities. After this quality -had been proved, the first vaccinations were undertaken in order to test -the effectiveness and the tolerance on human beings. This was done on -volunteers. - -Q. Where did you get these volunteers, Professor? - -A. First of all I served myself, then the members of my institute and a -number of students from the university. - -Q. Now, will you please tell us the purpose of these experiments? - -A. When one has produced a new vaccine one must test not only its -effectiveness, but also its tolerability. This can only be done on human -beings; animal experiments are not sufficient. At a certain stage it -always becomes necessary to test it on human beings. - -Q. In these vaccinations on members of the institute and students, you -tested the tolerability of the vaccine; the immunizing effect of the -vaccine, if I understood you correctly, could not be proved by these -experiments? - -A. Yes. The immunizing effect can also be determined. One merely needs -to make the Weil-Felix reaction, which has been mentioned in this trial. -That is, to ascertain whether the blood serum already contains -protective bodies against the typhus germ. This test (I mention this -because mistakes have been made here) is used not only to diagnose the -disease, but also, since it is a definite immunity reaction, to find the -protective bodies after vaccination. - -Q. We will come back to that later, Witness. Now when did you achieve -your aim, when did you have a vaccine of the type described, and when -did you develop it far enough to be used? - -A. In the spring of 1943. - -Q. And when was this vaccine first actually used on a large scale, or -when was it first used at all? - -A. The first vaccinations were carried out in May 1943 in the Schirmeck -internment camp, which belonged to the Natzweiler concentration camp. -The vaccinations were performed on persons in special danger. - -Q. This morning, Witness, you mentioned the request of a camp doctor of -the Natzweiler concentration camp, and Schirmeck was no doubt under him; -may I ask whether these Schirmeck vaccinations go back to the request of -the camp physician? - -A. I do not quite understand your question. - -Q. Please tell me whether the vaccinations performed in Schirmeck -originated with the request of the camp physician? - -A. Yes. Schirmeck and Natzweiler belong together. My vaccinations there -were in connection with all the work of the camp. - -Q. Then you used this vaccine for the first time in May 1943 in -Schirmeck. How many persons did you vaccinate? - -A. Twenty-eight persons were vaccinated altogether. - -Q. Did you have any influence on the selection of these persons; that -is, did you select these persons, or who selected them? - -A. I did not have any direct influence on the selection of these -persons, only to the extent that I told the camp administrator and the -camp doctor that we could only vaccinate people who were in a more or -less good state of health, since if this were not the case it would not -correspond to our German vaccination laws. To that extent I did have -some influence. - -The selection was made according to the point of view that persons were -selected who were in special danger of typhus, persons who were in the -so-called “east block” of the camp. New transports were always coming -from the East, lice infected, for the most part, so that one could count -on a considerable typhus danger. In this part of the camp the danger was -greater than in those parts of the camp, housing Germans and Alsatians -who did not come from the East. - -Q. You said, Witness, the persons were selected from the group of -prisoners in special danger of contracting typhus. You just mentioned -the east block. Can you tell us what nationality these persons were? - -A. As far as I can remember they were of various nationalities. There -were quite a number of them who spoke German and one could converse with -them easily. - -Q. Now, Witness, I should like to ask you to describe how these -vaccinations were carried out. Perhaps a preliminary question first. Why -did you vaccinate only 28 persons? Why did you not vaccinate all the -inmates of the camp there? - -A. At first I could only produce the vaccine in very small quantities. -My laboratory facilities were very limited. If I had wanted to vaccinate -a whole camp I would have had to have a production workshop. That is why -we only vaccinated a small number of people. - -Q. Now, Professor, please describe how the vaccinations were performed. - -A. Vaccinations were performed on 28 persons altogether, in several -groups. The first vaccination was of eight persons. They were given one -injection of 0.5 cc. of the vaccine into the breast muscle in the -customary manner. The second group consisted of 20 persons, divided into -two subgroups of ten each. The first group—let’s call this group A—was -also given 0.5 cc. of the vaccine intramuscularly. Subgroup B, the last -ten persons, were first given a vaccination of 0.5 cc. of a dead typhus -vaccine produced in the Robert Koch Institute. Then, eight days later, -there was a second vaccination with a live vaccine, again 0.5 cc. -intramuscularly. I should like to say that the first vaccination with -the dead vaccine, which I have just mentioned, was performed for two -reasons: First of all, in order to be able to see whether this -preliminary examination produced more protective bodies; and, in the -second place, to see whether this preliminary examination with dead -vaccine might reduce the reactions of the living vaccine. - -At the same time, I carried out protective vaccinations on persons -outside the camp, on volunteers. They were again performed in such a way -that there were three injections this time: the first, 0.25 cc., the -second, 0.25 cc., and the third injection 0.5 cc. of the live vaccine. - -Q. The Court will be especially interested, Witness, in the reactions of -the persons after this vaccination. Can you tell us that? - -A. In the first group of eight persons who were given 0.5 cc. of the -living vaccine only once, three had a reaction consisting of a short -fever of over 39 degrees. The rest of the persons, however, had no -reaction. - -In the second group, among the ten persons in group A, there were no -noticeable reactions. In the other group there were very negligible -symptoms, in some cases only a headache and depression. Typical symptoms -of typhus, brain symptoms or vessel symptoms, and other symptoms, did -not appear in any case. - -The same was true of the third group. Here again there was no reaction. -I must say in this connection that I used a vaccine produced from dead -typhus virus. I must point that out because later, in Natzweiler, I used -the classic epidemic or louse typhus virus vaccine. - -Q. Professor, after the vaccination did you watch the well-being of the -persons vaccinated? - -A. Yes, of course. After the vaccination I was frequently in the camp. I -looked at the persons who had been vaccinated and was shown their -temperature charts. After four weeks a final blood sample was taken to -perform the Weil-Felix reaction in order to see what degree of immunity -they had developed. - - * * * * * - -Q. * * * Were there any deaths in the course of these vaccinations at -Schirmeck? - -A. No. There were no deaths from the vaccinations at Schirmeck. - -Q. Witness, your testimony is in contradiction to the testimony of a -prosecution witness whom we heard here. This was George Hirtz, who -testified here on the 8th of January. His testimony is on page 1310 of -the German and page 1293 of the English record. Hirtz said that at -Schirmeck you injected 20 to 25 persons and during the following days -these people developed a high temperature. The temperature is said to -have started after 36 to 48 hours, and two of these people died. The -witness also said you had vaccinated him, the head of the camp, and the -Kapo in the sick bay. Will you explain the differences between your -testimony and the testimony of Hirtz? - -A. It is true that these three people, the camp head, the Kapo [inmate -trusty], and the nurse, that was Hirtz, were vaccinated with the -customary vaccine on the basis of an order to the effect that if there -was any danger of typhus, the camp personnel had to be vaccinated -regularly against this disease. Now, the personnel was in much less -danger than the inmates themselves; so in order to help the camp doctor, -I supplied the vaccine and vaccinated these three persons, but I -reserved the live vaccine for the persons who were in real danger. Those -were the reasons why these seeming distinctions were made. - -Q. The witness Hirtz also testified that he did not medically examine -these 20 people before they were vaccinated. Is that correct? - -A. When the prisoners came to the camp they were carefully examined by -the camp doctor. This was necessary in the interest of preventing -disease in the camp. Therefore, here I merely had to observe whether -they were free from external symptoms of disease and to determine how -strong they were. - -Q. Then if I understand you correctly, you say that the medical -examination was performed by the camp doctor, who made them available to -you for vaccination? - -A. Yes, the camp doctor and the head of the camp, together. - -Q. Now, Professor, is the statement of the witness Hirtz correct to the -effect that after 36 to 48 hours these persons had a temperature of up -to 40° Centigrade, 104° Fahrenheit? - -A. I have already said that aside from the first group there was no -special reaction. Hirtz himself did not know the first group, he says so -himself. In the second group, I have just testified that there were no -temperature reactions or any other reaction. - -Q. But you said, Witness—oh, that was the first group. - -A. Yes. And even here the reactions were quite the usual ones which -occur in other vaccinations, too. - -Q. But Hirtz also says that after the temperature—seven to eight days, -the persons developed some kind of disturbance and they had some -impediment in their speech and in three or four cases they stuttered. Do -you know anything about that? - -A. When I visited these persons I did not observe any such symptoms. -None of them complained, and I am sure that if any one found that he had -developed such symptoms he would immediately have gone to the doctor. -Everyone was interested in getting rid of these symptoms. I did not -observe any disturbances or stuttering. If Hirtz had seen them at the -time, I am convinced he would have reported them to me. He was the nurse -for these persons and was responsible for them; I cannot imagine that he -would have served the interests of these prisoners by keeping these -things secret. - -Q. You say that you did not observe such symptoms nor did Hirtz report -them to you. Now, Witness, Hirtz also said that after two days two of -these experimental subjects, as he calls them, or vaccinated persons, as -you call them, died. Did you observe this, Witness? - -A. I have already said that in the smaller experimental group no one -died, because I am sure I would have noticed it when I visited these -persons who had been vaccinated. I would certainly have ordered an -autopsy in the case of such deaths to determine when the person died. -Not only would I have ordered or carried out this autopsy, but the camp -administration would have ordered it. People might think that these -persons perhaps died of typhus. I must say that after a two-day -incubation period—that was the period between inoculation and death—no -one ever died of typhus. The shortest time for typhus deaths, that is -the incubation period plus length of disease, is ten days to fourteen -days. And these early deaths are supposed to be cases with a high -pathogenic virus originating directly from human beings. For this reason -alone it is quite impossible. - -Q. Witness, you said that in such cases you would doubtless have had an -autopsy performed. You said you heard nothing about the deaths, and -that, therefore, there was no autopsy; is that right? - -A. Yes. That is correct. - -Q. I should like to remind the Tribunal of the testimony of Hirtz. (_Tr. -p. 1298._) He said that he immediately wrapped the bodies in paper and -had them burned in the crematorium at Natzweiler. Not even the -prosecution witness was able to say, or perhaps did not want to say, how -Professor Haagen reacted to these deaths. Now one more question about -this witness Hirtz. Here on the witness stand Hirtz was asked, “Now -Witness, you realized that these experiments performed on the 20 to 25 -persons were experiments for the determination of typhus in connection -with typhus disease?” A. “Yes, I had not the slightest doubt about it. I -have fifteen years of practice behind me.” I do not know, Witness, what -this testimony means. Perhaps I am not enough of a specialist to judge, -but I may assume that you can explain what the content of these -statements is. - -A. I can only say that I cannot understand Mr. Hirtz’ statement at all. -I have no idea what experiments to determine typhus in connection with -this disease are supposed to be. First of all, there were no experiments -to determine typhus since there was no typhus. And I don’t know any -method for performing experiments on human beings to determine typhus. -If by experiments, one means the removal of blood in the Weil-Felix -reaction, that is something else, but that is not what he is talking -about here. As reason for his expert knowledge the witness states that -he has been a pharmacist for 15 years. That he has such a long practice -behind him and so considers himself an expert in the field of contagious -diseases. I can’t quite understand that either. But I think one can -expect that from a pharmacist—after all, pharmacists do sell vaccines -for public diseases in pharmacies—one would really expect him to know -what vaccine reactions are and what a real disease is. And then in the -first group where a reaction did appear, he didn’t know that group at -all. - -Q. You have already said, Witness, something about Mr. Hirtz’ testimony -that the prisoner Atloff told him about what Mr. Hirtz described was the -second experiment. It seems to me that supports your statement that Mr. -Hirtz knew nothing about the first group, that is the eight persons. Can -you tell us anything else, Professor, to explain the contradiction -between your testimony and that of Mr. Hirtz? - -A. Hirtz speaks only of one injection, not of two. The vaccinated -persons whom he took care of all had two injections at intervals of -several days. If he had really been interested in the vaccination, he -must have known that two injections were performed. That is one point. -Then he says that the needles were not changed. He seems to have -overlooked something there again; that for every injection a new -injection needle was used which was brought from Strasbourg already -sterilized, and that the technical assistant changed them. Anybody who -knows anything about scientific work knows that in such important work, -one does not use the same needle for several persons, quite aside from -the fact that this would not be in accordance with one of the most -elementary demands of asepsis. Here again he probably didn’t observe -very carefully. - -Q. Now, Professor, we are interested in the question of whether in the -camp of Schirmeck, you wanted to produce typhus through artificial -injection of pathogenic virus. Did you perform such experiments at -Schirmeck? - -A. No. No such experiments were performed. I don’t know what the purpose -would have been. - -Q. Then if I may sum up, Professor, you were introducing a vaccine into -practice after it had already been tested in animal experiments, in -self-experiments, and in experiments on volunteers. But experiments such -as I have just described were not performed at Schirmeck, is that -correct? - -A. Yes. That is correct. We were merely introducing a vaccine which was -already being used on a large scale in other countries. Perhaps I may -add that at first I intended to perform further vaccinations in the -Schirmeck camp in order to protect this camp as far as possible, but -that in the course of the next month, I realized that the Natzweiler -camp was entirely different in its whole structure and that there was -much greater danger of typhus in this camp. Therefore, I shifted my -interest from Schirmeck to Natzweiler. - -Q. Now before we go on to the work at Natzweiler, Witness, I should like -to clarify the following point with you. Mr. Hirtz testified here that -the prisoners used for vaccination were not volunteers; but you say, -Professor, that your point of view is that experimental subjects should -be volunteers. Can you please clearly answer this question and explain -the points of view which are important in your opinion in vaccinations -particularly? - -A. The prisoners whom we vaccinated were not volunteers. I would like to -say the following on that point: As I have already said, I share with -most scientists the point of view that the prerequisite for any -experiment is the self-experiment. This was not merely a theory in my -case. Everyone who knows my work or saw my work knows that I performed a -number of self-experiments and contracted a number of infections. I need -not go into that now, but of course I tested all vaccines on myself. If -we dispensed with the element of voluntariness in this present case, I -must state that according to our rules and laws in Germany, vaccinations -are ordered wherever there is danger of an epidemic. This situation -existed in Schirmeck and Natzweiler. There was a decree for this camp -from the SS-WVHA, and decrees were sent out by the chief doctor of -concentration camps. Our vaccinations were performed within these legal -regulations. In the records of trial, I find again and again the point -of view that I had taken poor, helpless prisoners and treated them with -murderous germs. But if one knows my work well, one can see that, on the -contrary, I was combating these diseases. There can be no question of -any criminal experiments here. I want to object very definitely to being -called a criminal when I was merely fighting diseases. - -Q. Well, Professor, you say that in this case you dispensed with -volunteers because it was not an experiment, but rather a vaccination, -and because it is your point of view that for vaccinations it is legally -permissible to make them compulsory—that you were merely carrying out a -legal measure under international law? - -A. Yes. This was a vaccination with a vaccine which was already being -used elsewhere in the world within the framework of general vaccinations -carried out on the basis of the existing regulations. - - * * * * * - -Q. When did you begin your work in Natzweiler proper? - -A. It was my intention to begin vaccination in the Natzweiler camp in -the summer of 1943, but then unexpected difficulties arose which I must -go into—I think they are of significance for this trial. Professor -Hirt, whose name I believe has been mentioned here repeatedly, the -director of the Anatomical Institute in Strasbourg, was a member of the -SS and a research worker of the Ahnenerbe. As an SS officer he had -discovered through the camp that I wanted to perform vaccinations there. -He then intervened because he thought that if persons outside the SS or -the WVHA wanted to work in the camp in some form or other we had to have -approval for this, quite aside from the fact that I had been asked to -perform these vaccinations, etc. Professor Hirt told the camp doctor and -myself that he was ready to get this approval and asked me to make a -request to this effect to the Institute for Military Scientific -Research. I had no connection with the SS or any suborganization of the -SS, nor did I know the inner organization of the SS. The application was -made in the summer of 1943. I cannot remember the wording of the -application exactly, but Hirt sent it on to the agency in question. I -only know that the application said that I had asked for permission to -vaccinate a certain number of camp inmates. One had to make a limitation -because I could only produce the vaccine in small quantities since the -technical conditions did not yet exist at the institute for large-scale -production. In this letter to Hirt, I pointed out that there was no -danger in vaccination with the new vaccine, but that we had to expect a -more or less strong reaction, especially a temperature reaction in -accordance with the variances in the individuals. I also pointed out -that the people to be vaccinated had to be in good physical condition, -so that they should be in more or less the same physical condition as -our soldiers. I said this in order to conform with the general -vaccination regulations. After some time I received an announcement from -the Institute for Military Scientific Research to the effect that my -request would be granted. - -Q. Professor, will you please look at Document NO-120, which is -Prosecution Exhibit 297. It is a letter from the Reich Leader SS, -Personal Staff, Institute for Military Scientific Research, dated 30 -September 1943. It is signed by Sievers, and it is addressed to the -Director of the Institute for Hygiene of the Reich University, -Strasbourg. Herr Sievers writes: - - “I confirm receipt of your request of 16 August 1943. I shall be - glad to help you and have accordingly contacted the proper - source to have the desired personnel placed at your disposal.” - -Is this the letter you meant, Witness, when you said that you were given -approval in principle to carry out these vaccinations? - -A. Yes, this letter created the basic prerequisities for performing the -vaccinations. If we disregard the fact that for epidemiological reasons -the vaccinations were justified and even necessary, this letter, I -believe, gives us a justification to perform them. - -Q. Now, were you able to carry out the vaccinations? - -A. No. It wasn’t as simple as that unfortunately—I say “unfortunately” -because precious time was lost and I was interested in protecting the -camp as soon as possible, at least insofar as there was no longer any -danger of typhus. I informed the camp doctor of the contents of this -letter and asked to be allowed to commence the vaccinations. A -considerable time passed, however, and not until November did I receive -notice that we could begin with the vaccinations. The whole affair had -not been helped by Hirt’s intervention, therefore, but had even been -delayed. Then when I received the first hundred prisoners, I looked at -them and found that they were in no condition at all to be vaccinated. -They were in very poor shape. I must say that they were prisoners who -came from Auschwitz on the transport; I think eighteen of the people had -already died. One really had no right to perform a vaccination on such a -group. I did not do so and refused for medical reasons. - -Q. And what did you do then, Witness? - -A. I informed Hirt of this. I wrote to him frankly that these people -were out of the question for vaccination and I asked for men in good -physical condition. - -Q. Professor, will you please look at Document NO-121, Prosecution -Exhibit 293? It is a letter from you to Professor Hirt, dated 15 [13] -November 1943. Did you mean this letter when you say that you wrote to -Hirt? I shall read briefly: - - “On the 13th of November 1943, an inspection was made of the - prisoners who were furnished to me by the SS-WVHA, in order to - determine their suitability for the tests which have been - planned for typhus vaccines.” - -Is this the letter? - -A. Yes. This is the letter of 13 November 1943. I may point out in this -letter that I asked for a hundred prisoners in good physical condition. -Only in this way could I expect results which could be used for purposes -of comparison. - -Q. Professor, I have something to put to you from this document which is -perhaps a contradiction—or which may be interpreted as a -contradiction—of your testimony. You say that you wanted to vaccinate -these people and the first sentence of the document seems to indicate -that. You write, “their suitability for the typhus vaccinations.” -Further down, however, in the document you speak of testing a new -vaccine. Again, further down, “material which can be compared.” One -might conclude that these are not vaccinations but experiments. Is this -not in contradiction of your testimony? - -A. No. That is not in contradiction of my statements. It is apparently -necessary for me to supplement my statements by saying the following: as -I said, in the Natzweiler camp I wanted to vaccinate a fairly large -number of prisoners. The vaccine was ready as far as the laboratory was -concerned; it had been tested in animal experiments; it had been tested -in self-experiments, and on a small group of volunteers. I, therefore, -knew that it no longer involved any danger for the persons vaccinated -and that the use of this living vaccine did not bring about any manifest -disease. But when a new vaccine is used for the first time in practice -it is to a certain degree an experiment, since the tolerance still has -to be determined and that can only be determined on a large number of -people. The dose still has to be determined and the result of the -vaccination still has to be checked on a large number of people. So I -admit it is no doubt true that the use of a new vaccine for the first -time in practice on a large number of people could still be considered -an experiment. I should like to add that in the first large-scale -application the titer values and blood were examined. Of course, -temperature was taken and all other observations were carefully made in -order to get a definite final impression of the effectiveness and -tolerance of the vaccine. We had to do this; it was our duty. It was a -big responsibility to introduce a new vaccine like this, even if one had -already gained experience in a small experiment on oneself and -volunteers. But in this trial the word, “experiment,” has been grossly -misused. In this sense our vaccinations were not “experiments”, they -were tests and not experiments with any uncertain goal or purpose. One -can hardly speak of criminal experiments here. And in every medical -journal in the world, on almost every page, we find experiments at the -sick bed, and I don’t think anyone has any objection to this word. And -as far as human experiments are concerned, I should like to refer to -advertisements which show the public attitude of an American firm—in -picture magazines which I have seen myself. Antiseptics such as -Listerine, where they speak of human beings on whom tests have been -made, who were used as guinea pigs. For this reason alone I think the -word; “experiment”, is used in different senses. - -Q. One term has not yet been cleared in this document, the last words, -“comparable material.” Can you please explain what that means? What did -you mean by “comparable material”? - -A. That means that the investigations indicated had already been made -and that the results were to be compared with one another, so that one -could have really useful results. The individual values of every -immunologist vary considerably according to the constitution and general -physical condition. That was one of the reasons why I was very careful -to obtain only those persons in good physical condition for vaccination, -since persons in a poor condition react quite differently. Besides, I -must point out that according to the general vaccination regulations, -vaccinations of any type can only be performed on healthy people, and I -wanted to observe this rule strictly. - - * * * * * - -DR. TIPP: Now, Witness, I turn to the next document, NO-122, Prosecution -Exhibit 298. It is a letter from Rose to you dated 13 December 1943. In -this letter the frequently mentioned Copenhagen vaccine is again -mentioned. Herr Rose writes here that the testing of many vaccines -simultaneously gives a clearer picture of better or worse results of a -method than the testing of one vaccine alone. Furthermore, there is -mention of the experiments in Buchenwald. Let me ask you first of all, -Professor, when you received this letter in December 1943, what did you -know about these Buchenwald experiments? - -WITNESS HAAGEN: I only heard the details about these Buchenwald -experiments from the documents in this trial. Moreover, Dr. Ding’s -report at the consulting conference in 1943 must be mentioned. I heard -of Professor Rose’s protest against these human experiments at that -time. - -Q. You had no connection then with these Ding experiments? - -A. I never worked with Ding and knew of his work only from the report at -this consulting conference. - -Q. The prosecution has deduced regarding these Buchenwald experiments -that the efficacy of the vaccine was tested by subsequent infection with -pathogenic virus. Will you please say what you have to about that? - -A. This attitude on the part of the prosecution ignores the fact, as I -said several times, that I never had a strain of virus which is -pathogenic to human beings, consequently, I could not carry out an -infection such as the prosecution seems to assume. I never thought of -carrying out such subsequent infection with a virus pathogenic to human -beings, because I was working as a scientist with my own material, and -wasn’t testing mixture for other vaccines at all. - -As I have already said, on the occasion of Aherinesliev, I vaccinated -some of the inmates there, with an attenuated virus in order to minimize -the reactions to the vaccine. I thought that in the next vaccination I -would carry out these primary vaccinations with dead vaccine and I -wanted to use such a vaccine that used a dead virus. In the meantime, -between Schirmeck vaccines and the new vaccinations in Natzweiler, I had -carried my work to the point where I no longer needed a dead vaccine. -But the previous history was this: Professor Rose, by sending me this -Copenhagen vaccine, thought he was supporting and helping me. And he -suggested that I include this dead vaccine in my series of vaccines. Let -me say regarding this Copenhagen vaccine that it was a liver vaccine -which is said to be much more effective than the other dead vaccines, -particularly more so than the lung vaccine; and from it, in dead form, a -better protection could be expected. Now, it was my point of view that -if we distributed it over 100 persons again and did not get other -persons, there would not be enough vaccinations to be of value for -comparisons. So, I didn’t see any reason for introducing the Copenhagen -vaccine. I told this to Professor Rose and Professor Rose answered in -the form we have seen in the letter which constitutes this document. -This would have given some basis for comparison between the two -vaccines. However, I didn’t use it because I was no longer interested in -it since, in the meantime, we had succeeded somewhat in attenuating our -own virus so that we could do without it. I heard no more from Professor -Rose about this vaccine and never received the Copenhagen vaccine. - -Q. Then you say, Professor, that this was a dead vaccine, namely the -Copenhagen vaccine, and there was also your own dead vaccine which was -to be used for a preliminary vaccination to reduce the reaction to the -live vaccine. However, this plan although originally intended, was never -carried out? - -A. Yes. That is so. - -Q. Now, Professor, we were talking about your letter to Professor Hirt -of 15 [13] November 1943, in which you ask him to make other prisoners -available. Was this request met later and were you able to carry out -vaccinations in Natzweiler later with your new vaccine? - -A. Yes. I received the persons I had requested, and in December of 1943 -and January of 1944 we were able to carry out these vaccinations. I -performed them in two groups of 40 persons each with my live attenuated -virus which is no longer pathogenic to human beings, and this I want to -state explicitly. - -Q. Professor, please describe these vaccinations briefly to the -Tribunal. - -A. First, a group of 40 persons was vaccinated. The first vaccination -was done with one cc. intramuscularly. One was a vaccine made of murine -typhus virus vaccine. In no case did local reactions of temperature or -other symptoms occur. The second vaccination took place a week later. -This was again one cc. of vaccine introduced intramuscularly. This was -no longer pathogenic to human beings. To complete the story I have to -say that between the Schirmeck vaccinations in May and these -vaccinations, I had turned to the production of a louse typhus vaccine; -this vaccine contained live virus. Before it was used in Natzweiler as a -vaccine, we tested it on ourselves, that is, with some collaborators, to -ascertain the tolerability and effects. We were roughly ten persons, -members of the institute and also students. Only then did we use the -vaccine on the prisoners in Natzweiler. Four weeks after the last -vaccination there were the usual serological examinations. The -Weil-Felix reaction was used. The average titer value, let me say, was -better than in the vaccinations with the rat virus. It was, namely -2,000. I need not go into these details. The general reactions were -normal reactions to inoculation, temperature, and headaches; but there -were no manifestations of actual typhus as a result of inoculations. - -Q. You are speaking of a first group, so I assume there must have been a -second group. How did you carry out the vaccination of the second group? - -A. It occurred to me that instead of injecting the vaccine, the -vaccination could be performed by scarifying the skin in the same way as -you scrape the skin to make a smallpox vaccination. Therefore, as with -the first group, with the same living virus vaccine, I vaccinated 40 -additional persons with scarification of the skin. Let me point out that -the experiments on myself and on my assistants were carried out in the -same way, with scarification of the skin. The reactions were -comparatively mild, corresponding roughly to the reactions to vascular -typhus vaccine, so that we had no misgivings about undertaking this kind -of vaccination. - -Q. You described the reactions of yourself and the volunteers as very -slight. Now, the reactions of the prisoners were stronger, were they -not? - -A. Yes. They were stronger again. And this we can only explain by -believing that the general state of health among the prisoners was lower -than among my associates; but there was no such thing as a natural -manifestation of typhus or any fatalities. - - * * * * * - -Q. But, Professor, to this statement I shall have to put to you -something which was said before this Tribunal and which is quite -different from what you have just said. I am referring to the testimony -of the witness, Edith Schmidt. On 9 January 1947 (_Tr. p. 1371_), she -said that you had carried out vaccination experiments on 100 to 150 -persons in Natzweiler, and out of these experiments roughly 50 are said -to have died from the control group. Fraeulein Schmidt stated that she -knew this from notes which your technical assistant, Miss Crodel, had -made about the typhus experiments at Natzweiler. Can you please tell the -Tribunal to which notes Fraeulein Schmidt was referring—in other words, -how do you explain her testimony? - -A. It is utterly impossible for Fraeulein Schmidt to have seen records -of notes of my vaccinations in Natzweiler in which fatalities occurred -because as I have already said no one died following the vaccinations. -These notes of Fraeulein Crodel’s which Fraeulein Schmidt saw do not -refer to the vaccinations. That can be seen from the numbers mentioned, -by Fraeulein Schmidt, because I only vaccinated 80 persons at -Natzweiler, not 150 to 200 as the witness stated. The witness apparently -took this number and the concept of a control group from later writings, -which are to be discussed hereafter; but I can imagine to which note she -could have been referring. - -Q. Please continue, Witness. - -A. The witness states correctly when these notes were made, because she -says the sun was shining on the pages. That must have been in the spring -or summer of 1944. This corresponds with the time when the typhus -epidemic was raging in the camp. Thus I assume that Fraeulein Schmidt -really did see genuine notes of some sort. - -Q. Then, Witness, you are saying that these were notes which were made -in the course of an epidemic that took place in Natzweiler, can you tell -us when this epidemic broke out? - -A. So far as I can state from memory, the epidemic broke out in February -or March of 1944. Gradually the number of cases became very large, and -in the summer the very considerable figure of roughly 1,200 was reached. - -Q. Let me point out in this connection that this epidemic is confirmed -by two prosecution witnesses: Grandjean on 6 January (_Tr. p. 1099_) and -the witness Holl on 3 January 1947 (_Tr. p. 1058_). Both witnesses -stated that in the spring of 1944 and also in the summer following, -there was a severe typhus epidemic in Natzweiler. The witness Grandjean -gave the number as 1,200 to 1,400 cases, as I remember, thus this would -agree with what you have just said, Witness. Now, the most important -question in this connection is, did the outbreak of this epidemic have -any connection with your vaccinations—what I mean is, were your -vaccinations the cause of this epidemic? - -A. No. There was no connection between the epidemic and our -vaccinations. Our vaccinations had already been concluded in January -1944, and the first typhus cases occurred in February or March, and they -were brought into the camp from outside, either by transports or from -other camps. Let me repeat that the sick people were taken from outside -camps to Schirmeck where they were treated in a special department, -because there was no way of isolating them in the outside camps. - - * * * * * - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - -MR. MCHANEY: Let’s pass on to the notebook. Now, what does the notebook -show? What is this notebook? - -WITNESS HAAGEN: That is a control book in which the experiments with the -typhus vaccine on the animals were recorded. - -Q. Does that notebook concern your typhus experiments? - -A. As far as I can see now, it looks as if that was the current -laboratory work which we were carrying out. That is what it looks like, -but I’d have to see all of it first. - -Q. Now, Professor, you must be able to tell the Tribunal who wrote this -book. - -A. The technical assistant kept it, and from the handwriting, it looks -as if she made these entries; but I can’t interpret every record after -such a long time. I have to study it first. We did not only have -vaccinations, but also scientific work. - -Q. But to the best of your memory, you can state that this notebook was -written by Fraeulein Crodel, and it concerns the experiments carried out -by you? - -A. The laboratory work, as far as I can see at the moment. I would like -to make that restriction. - -MR. MCHANEY: The prosecution asks that Document NO-3852 be marked as -Prosecution Exhibit 521 for identification. - -Now, Professor, we have covered the chart of the test on the two mice. -Let’s go to the notebook itself. And in order to follow my questions, I -will ask you to observe the pencil numbers which I have written on this -photostatic copy down at the bottom right-hand corner of each page. Do -you find that? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Will you turn to page 3? - -If the Tribunal, please, it will be necessary to renumber the pages -appearing on your translations. This applies equally to the defense -counsel. When the translation was made, they took some pages off the -reverse side of the photostatic copy, and because of the two pages -appearing for one photostatic copy, they had to be renumbered. Page 5 on -the translations should be marked page 3. - -Do you find the entry for 30 April 1943, Professor? - -A. 30 April ’43, yes. - -Q. And that says, “S, plus, plus, 9, Sch.” That is Schirmeck, isn’t it, -Professor? “Sch.”? - -A. No. That means ninth passage. It is supposed to be “pas.”, ninth -passage. - -Q. It says “Sch.”, what does “Sch.” mean? - -A. It doesn’t look like “Sch.” to me. - -Q. What does it look like to you? - -A. In German, I think it looks like a “p”, a German “p”. - -Q. And you think it should read what? - -A. First, I said it is probably “passage—ninth passage”. - -Q. All right. Let’s go down to the entry, the next one for 14 May. In -parenthesis “two weeks,” does that mean the vaccine had been stored for -two weeks? - -A. Where is that? I can’t find it. - -Q. 14 May, immediately— - -A. It probably means that it was stored for two weeks, yes. - -Q. And then you go on, and it reads, “1 plus two point two for six mice, -point five, I. P. All injected again, six point six immune, only two out -of four of the controlled died,” right? - -A. Yes. That is right. - -Q. Then, the next is 26 May, “four weeks, three dash six,” what does -“three dash six” mean, Professor? - -A. “Four weeks, three to six,” only I can’t tell you at the moment. I’d -have to reconstruct what the assistant wrote. - -Q. Well, passing that for the moment. It continues to read, “point 5 per -person and six mice point five I. P., five dead after ten, fourteen -days. The rest after four weeks.” What does “the rest” refer to, the one -mouse? Does that refer to those unidentified persons? - -A. No. That refers to the mice. It was simply a mouse experiment. It -says “five dead.” We should have all the information on the mice. This -is only an extract. - -Q. But this is May 1943, when you were vaccinating people in Schirmeck, -and this entry says “three dash six, point five per persons”. Now you -are not suggesting to the Tribunal that the “persons” are referring to -the mice? It continues to say— - -A. But when it says “six mice” with “point five”, that was the serum, I -suppose, because we were also testing the immunizing effect on mice. I -can’t interpret it differently at the moment. “Four weeks”, that means -the vaccine had been stored for four weeks. “Point five per persons” -were vaccinated. That might mean that it was a comparison experiment, -that the effectiveness was to be tested on mice. At the moment I can’t -give any exact interpretation. I’d have to study the document very -carefully. - -Q. What does this “per person” refer to? Talking about human beings, -aren’t they? - -A. Yes. It is very possible that that was the vaccine which we had -injected into the persons in Schirmeck in May of ’43; and then in -parallel experiments, we tested it on mice. It was still pathogenic to -mice. It was the murine typhus virus. - -Q. But not pathogenic to human beings. It killed the mice, but you were -sure it wouldn’t kill any human beings, is that right? - -A. Yes. The vaccination showed that. - -Q. Let’s see what it showed. Let’s look at the entry for 6 July, and you -will recall that this is right about the time that our witness, Hirtz, -was testifying. On 6 July, “drawings of blood, Schirmeck, 10 persons, 3 -had fever, Weil-Felix,” and then under number 1 to 8, indicating persons -1 to 8, you give the serum titer count, and then comes a little phrase, -“the other two were not here anymore.” Professor, what about these other -two persons out of the ten? You remember that the witness Hirtz -testified that he personally sewed two bodies up in a paper bag, which -were delivered to the crematorium after you had injected your vaccine. -Doesn’t this, “the other two are not here anymore”, rather substantiate -what the witness Hirtz testified to? - -A. No. I wouldn’t say that. In my direct examination, I said that on -checking these vaccinated persons, no one was missing. Whether later -perhaps—these serological examinations were in May, two months -before—whether some of the prisoners went in the meantime, I don’t -know. If anyone had died there would have been an entry somewhere in the -record, I should think. - -Q. Doesn’t that entry say, “the two weren’t here anymore”? Where were -these serological examinations in May? I don’t see that in your records. -Does it show any serological examinations in May? - -A. In the institute. And this is a later check on the immunity through -the Weil-Felix experiments. - -Q. We will proceed, Professor. Now you testified you did not conduct any -vaccinations after May 1943 in Schirmeck, and I must have given you an -opportunity at least five times to make that perfectly clear. And even -on the last document I put to you, you still insist you did not make -any. The next entry reads, “4 October 1943, six months, inoculated 20 -persons in Schirmeck, tube plus 2 cc. distilled water, 0.5 per person”. - -Do you want to change your testimony now, Professor? - -A. First I have to read it carefully. There is a figure here, “six -months”. I have to interpret that “20 persons inoculated in Schirmeck”. -Those are probably the 20 people we vaccinated in May, whom the witness -here mentioned. “Two cc. distilled water, then 0.5 cc. per person.” I do -not know even today that we carried out vaccinations in Schirmeck in the -fall of 1943. Then there is an entry on the 27th of January, 1944, “nine -months”. - -Q. That is right. That gives you the length of time you had this vaccine -stored, does it not, Professor? On 4 October 1943 you had it stored six -months? You inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck on 4 October, did you -not, as you stated in your letter to Rose on the same date: “the -inoculations are now progressing,” or words to that effect? You remember -you said to Rose in a letter of 4 October 1943, which I put to you, that -was just a plan that you would do that. This entry indicates you did do -it, does it not, Professor? - -A. I must stress what I said before. Afterwards it suddenly says -“January 1943”. That is a time much farther back. - -Q. Yes, it is further back. It is obviously a mistake, Professor, as you -well know. Sometimes people running from December over into January make -a mistake and put the last year, you know, and that is obviously what -happened in this case because he could not write a contemporaneous entry -for January 1943 and then have it appear up above that entry, entries -for October, July, and May and April 1943, could he, Professor? You will -agree with me that the date should read 27 January 1944, when the -vaccine had been stored nine months dating from 30 April 1943, is that -not right, Professor? - -A. I cannot remember that we vaccinated anybody in Schirmeck later; I am -very sorry. - -Q. You remember that you did not vaccinate anybody after May, Professor? - -A. Yes. That is right. - -Q. On 27 January 1944, which is the next entry, “nine months, mixed with -the same amount as 21 May distilled water plus tube, 20 persons 10 cc. -each”. Those were in Schirmeck, too, were they not, Professor? - -A. It says 1 cc., 1 point 0 cc. It does not say anything about -Schirmeck. I cannot say. I must assure you once more that I actually -know nothing about these vaccinations. I am very sorry. - -Q. Let us proceed to page 4, Professor. It is apparently another series -on Schirmeck. Do you find the entry on page 4? Your Honors should change -page 6 to page 4. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Our pages are numbered 1 and 2. You are referring -to the numbers on the original document? - -MR. MCHANEY: Yes, your Honor, page 6 on our translation. Page 6 of the -original, should be changed to read page 4 of the original. - -Now, Professor, do you find an entry on page 4 before you, of 10 -October, “five months, inoculated ten persons in Schirmeck”? Do you find -that, Professor? - -WITNESS HAAGEN: Yes. - -Q. That indicates you inoculated some after 4 October 1943, vaccinations -which you mentioned in your letter to Rose, and which are confirmed by -this notebook. - -And then, under the entry for 10 October, you find 27 January 1944. Does -it appear 1944 on the original? - -A. 27 January 1944, yes. - -Q. Eight months? - -A. Eight months, yes. - -Q. You speak of inoculating 20 persons there, do you not, Professor? Can -you tell the Tribunal that those were done in Schirmeck? - -A. I do not know that vaccinations were performed in Schirmeck at this -time. We were only vaccinating in Natzweiler at this time, and I did not -hear that such vaccinations were carried out. I am sorry. - -Q. All right. - -A. I am trying to interpret the document. - -Q. Professor, let us go on to page 5. Do you find page 5, Professor? - -A. Yes. - -Q. This mentions another series of inoculations in Schirmeck, “13 July -1943, approximately seven weeks, Schirmeck, 0.5 cc. per person and six -mice before the inoculation”. - -Let us drop down lower on the page. Do you find the entry for 14 -October? - -Professor, do you find that? - -A. Yes. - -Q. “Ten persons inoculated for the third time with 1 cc.” Professor, I -thought you told us that you did not carry out multiple vaccinations -with your murine vaccine in Schirmeck. - -A. I have already testified that the only vaccinations in Schirmeck were -in May 1943. I do not know from where this record came. In the fall of -1943 we were only working in Natzweiler. I am sorry, I cannot give any -explanation. - -Q. This entry, though, Professor, indicates an inoculation for the third -time on a series of ten persons. That was your “Infektions-Versuche,” -was it not, Professor? - -A. No. I know nothing about it; I am sorry. - -Q. But your series of three vaccinations was what you referred to as the -“Infektions-Versuche,” was it not, Professor? - -A. But these were vaccinations which were carried out in Natzweiler, Mr. -Prosecutor. - -Q. The book says they were carried out in Schirmeck, and about four days -before, on the 4th of October 1943, you wrote to Rose and said, “We have -to carry out infection experiments.” Professor, is it possible that you -really meant by “infection experiments” something other than your -three-times vaccination which you had concluded on 14 October 1943? - -A. Let me see exactly what it says here, page 5, “10 October-14 October, -ten persons, three times point five,” it says again. It only says it is -a vaccination, if this document is right. - -Q. Does the document say, “Vaccinated ten persons, inoculated for the -third time”? Is that what it said? - -A. Yes. It says so. In May at Schirmeck in the control group we -vaccinated three times. That is not impossible; but what I notice on -this document, if you want to connect it with the Ipsen vaccine, is that -it does not say anything about the Ipsen vaccine; I have not found that -yet, but it does say Gildemeister. - -Q. I have not mentioned anything about Ipsen vaccine. Let us proceed, -Professor, so that we get through before the noon recess. Remember, you -testified you had not carried out any vaccinations in Natzweiler after -January 1944. Professor, will you turn to page 7 of this little notebook -on your experiments, and while this is not the only entry which shows -that you carried out vaccination experiments in Natzweiler after January -1944, I think it will be sufficient for our purposes. Do you have page -7? Will you find the entry? - -A. Yes. I have page 7. - -Q. Will you find the entry for 25 May 1944? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Does that read, “Together with S inoculated, used up five tubes of MI -in Natzweiler; two ampules distilled water, three to four cubic -centimeters per ampule vaccine, 0.5 cc. The inoculation took place -during the incubation period, a transport also containing sick people, -13 became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June; of those, two died.” - -Then it continues to give the titer value of some of the others. -Professor, don’t you have to change your testimony about vaccination in -Natzweiler? - -A. No. I cannot change it. I know nothing about this. - -Q. Professor, let us look at words “together with S”. What do you -understand “together with S” to mean? It is 25 May 1944? - -A. I have no idea what “S” means. - -Q. You testified that the defendant Schroeder visited you and you fixed -the date, 25 May 1944. Is there any possibility that that “S” could mean -Schroeder? - -A. No. That is quite impossible. Impossible. Professor Schroeder never -carried out any experiments with me nor did any work in my laboratory. -He was not with me in Schirmeck or Natzweiler. - -Q. He was not with you in Natzweiler? - -A. No. - - * * * * * - ------ - -[57] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V. - -[58] Not introduced in evidence. - -[59] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 1947, -pp. 11049-11074. - -[60] United States _vs._ Friedrich Flick, et al. See Vol. VI. - -[61] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V. - -[62] Passage is the passing of a disease carrier through a human being -or through an animal. - -[63] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7, 8, -9 Jan. 1947, pp. 1151-1883. - -[64] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21, -22, 23, 24, 25 April 1947, pp. 6081-6484. - -[65] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 26, 27, -28, 31 March 1947, pp. 5000-5244. - -[66] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17, 18, -19, 20 June 1947, pp. 9409-9713. - - 10. EXPERIMENTS WITH POISON - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick were charged -with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct -involving experiments with poison (par. 6 (K) of the indictment). Only -the defendant Mrugowsky was convicted on this charge. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the experiments with -poison is contained in its closing brief against the defendant -Mrugowsky. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 631 to -632. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these -experiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant -Mrugowsky. It appears below on pages 633 to 634. This argumentation is -followed by selections from the evidence on pages 634 to 639. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST - DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY_ - - * * * * * - - _Poison Experiments_ - -Poison experiments were carried out in the Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen -concentration camps by order of the defendant Mrugowsky (_Tr. pp. -1183-6_). The first series of the experiments was carried out in -December 1943 in order to determine the fatal dosage of poisons of the -alkaloid group. These experiments were requested by the SS judge, -Morgen, who investigated the criminal case against Koch, camp commander -of Buchenwald, and the defendant Hoven. Hoven was suspected of having -killed a witness against Koch and himself by means of poison. Four -Russian prisoners of war were experimented upon by Ding. The poison was -administered to the experimental subjects in their food without their -knowledge. All four survived, but were strangled in a crematorium of the -concentration camp in order that autopsies could be performed. (_Tr. pp. -1183-6_; _NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_.) Since Ding was subordinated to -Mrugowsky, this experiment could not have been performed by Ding without -Mrugowsky’s approval. - -On 11 September 1944 Mrugowsky and Ding carried out an experiment with -aconitine nitrate projectiles in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. -The projectiles were filled with crystallized poison and five -experimental subjects were shot in the upper part of the left thigh with -these projectiles. In two cases, no effect of the poison could be -observed. In the other three cases, the suffering of the experimental -subjects was terrible. All three died after approximately two hours of -agony. The poison bullets used in the experiments were allegedly of -Russian origin. (_NO-201, Pros. Ex. 290._) - -The experimental subjects were Russian prisoners of war. (_Tr. p. 1186_; -_see also Kogon’s testimony in Case 4_.[67]) Mrugowsky admitted his -participation in these experiments. He defended himself on the ground -that he was the legally appointed executioner in this case. Assuming the -truth of this absurd statement, it cannot be held legal to torture to -death prisoners of war even if they had been validly sentenced to death. - -On 26 October 1944 still another poison experiment was carried out by -Ding in Buchenwald. The entry in the Ding diary for that date states: -“Special experiment on 6 persons according to instructions of SS -Oberfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and RKPA. (Report on this orally.)” -Kogon testified that Ding told him the Russian prisoners of war used in -the experiments died in a short time. They were later dissected and -burned. Ding reported to Mrugowsky orally. These experiments were -connected with the poison bullet experiments in the Sachsenhausen -concentration camp. (_Tr. pp. 1185-1186._) - - * * * * * - - c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT - MRUGOWSKY_[68] - - * * * * * - -In respect to the poison experiments, I proved in my written statement -that Ding’s assertion that Mrugowsky had ordered him to be present at a -euthanasia killing by phenol is not correct. Professor Killian, who -according to Ding’s statement, was present when the order was given, -said that this statement of Ding’s was incorrect. It showed that the -examination of the question of whether the noxious effect of serums -containing phenol can be proved by the comparative use of serums with -and without phenol, and also a series of experiments with serums -containing phenol was never carried out. - -The experiments with pervitin were carried out on the initiative of Dr. -Morgen and Dr. Wehner, according to the Ding diary. I proved that no -harm was caused to the health of the experimental subjects by these -experiments. The experiments were performed with pervitin which can be -obtained in any chemist’s shop without a prescription and consequently -is not a poison. In the experiments it was used together with a narcotic -because the authority wanted to determine whether, as a result of this -treatment, the effect was increased one way or the other. The only -effect was that the experimental subjects fell into a disturbed sleep -for up to 20 hours. This pervitin experiment was not ordered by -Mrugowsky; he did not participate therein in any way, and the -prosecution did not even contend that he knew of it. No responsibility -under criminal law may be deduced against him from this experiment. - -With regard to the special experiment on 6 persons mentioned in Ding’s -diary, it is again solely the witness Kogon who gave details. In my -closing brief I pointed out that, in this case too, Kogon gave -contradictory testimony in the Pohl trial[69] and the doctors’ trial -about the origin of this experiment. Thus his evidence has no probative -value. Moreover, Kogon’s description of this experiment, except for the -sealing and the burning of the prescription, is only based on Ding’s -statements. In respect to this special experiment, there is no evidence -whatsoever to show the type of poison used, the manner in which the -special experiment was performed, and the aim of the experiment. After -the collapse, Ding told the defendant Sievers that towards the end of -1944 in Buchenwald he had filled 80 phials with prussic acid in order to -commit suicide, but he unfortunately took none of them with him. - -No one can prove whether Ding carried out his “special experiment” with -these prussic acid capsules because Ding left no report about the course -of the special experiment. - -The Ding diary states that the experiment was performed by order of -Mrugowsky and the Reich Criminal Police Office. Because the diary has -such little probative value, the truth of this contention cannot be -proved by this document alone. No other evidence has been submitted to -show that Ding poisoned 6 prisoners by order of Mrugowsky. Therefore -there is no conclusive evidence to prove that Mrugowsky ordered this -experiment or that he even knew about it. - -The prosecution further indicted Mrugowsky because of an execution -performed at Sachsenhausen in which ten bandits sentenced to death were -executed with bullets poisoned with aconitine. I have proved that -Mrugowsky attended this execution only as the usual doctor present at an -execution. I further demonstrated that the execution took place because, -in an attempt on the life of a high-ranking civil servant in the General -Government, Russian revolver ammunition had been used in which hollow -bullets had been filled with aconitine poison. This use of poisoned -Russian bullets, and Henderson’s book which described the preparation -for the use of poisoned bullets in the First World War, had increased -the concern that poisoned bullets would shortly be used at the front. I -proved that poisoned ammunition was used at the execution to determine -whether pure aconitine or a poison mixture had been used in the bullets, -and how much time would be available in case of need to administer -antidotes. - -I proved that all executions in the concentration camps were ordered by -the Reich Criminal Police Office, and that the presence of a doctor at -such executions was prescribed. The execution at Sachsenhausen was -ordered by the Reich Criminal Police Office. No charge under criminal -law can be deduced against Mrugowsky from his attendance as a doctor at -the execution. I have explained this in detail in my closing brief. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - Pros. Ex. - Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page -NO-201 290 Report from Mrugowsky to the Criminological 635 - Institute, 12 September 1944, concerning - experiments with aconitine nitrate - projectiles. - - _Testimony_ - -Extract from the testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Eugen Kogon 637 - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-201 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 290 - - REPORT FROM MRUGOWSKY TO THE CRIMINOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, 12 SEPTEMBER - 1944, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS WITH ACONITINE NITRATE PROJECTILES - -Reich Physician SS and Police Berlin-Zehlendorf 6, -The Chief Hygienist 12 September 1944 -Journal No.: Secret 364/44 Dr. Mru./Eb. Spanische Allee 10-12 - - Top Secret - -Subject: Experiments with aconitine nitrate projectiles -To the Criminological Institute [Stamp] -attn: Dr. Widmann - -Berlin Criminological Institute - Department: Chemistry - received: 13 Sep 1944 - Journal No. g 53/44 - in charge: - -In the presence of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding, Dr. Widmann, and the -undersigned, experiments with aconitine nitrate projectiles were -conducted on 11 September 1944 on 5 persons who had been condemned to -death. The projectiles in question were of a 7.65 mm. caliber, filled -with crystallized poison. The experimental subjects, in a lying -position, were each shot in the upper part of the left thigh. The thighs -of two of them were cleanly shot through. Even afterwards, no effect of -the poison was to be observed. These two experimental subjects were -therefore exempted. - -The entrance of the projectile did not show any peculiarities. Evidently -the arteria femoralis of one of the subjects were injured. A slight -stream of blood issued from the wound. But the bleeding stopped after a -short time. The loss of blood was estimated as having been at the most ¾ -of a liter, and consequently was on no account fatal. - -The symptoms of the condemned three showed a surprising similarity. At -first no peculiarities appeared. After 20 to 25 minutes a motor -agitation and a slight ptyalism set in, but stopped again. After 40 to -45 minutes a stronger salivation set in. The poisoned persons swallowed -repeatedly, but later the flow of saliva became so strong that it could -not even be overcome by swallowing. Foamy saliva flowed from their -mouths. Then choking and vomiting set in. - -After 58 minutes the pulse of two of them could no longer be felt. The -third had a pulse rate of 76. After 65 minutes his blood pressure was -90/60. The sounds were extremely low. A reduction of blood pressure was -evident. - -During the first hour of the experiment the pupils did not show any -changes. After 78 minutes the pupils of all three showed a medium -dilation together with a retarded light reaction. Simultaneously, -maximum respiration with heavy breathing inhalations set in. This -subsided after a few minutes. The pupils contracted again and their -reaction improved. After 65 minutes the patellar and achilles tendon -reflexes of the poisoned subjects were negative. The abdominal reflexes -of two of them were also negative. The upper abdominal reflexes of the -third were still positive, while the lower were negative. After -approximately 90 minutes, one of the subjects again started breathing -heavily. This was accompanied by an increasing motor unrest. Then the -heavy breathing changed into a flat, accelerated respiration, -accompanied by extreme nausea. One of the poisoned persons tried in vain -to vomit. To do so he introduced four fingers of his hand up to the -knuckles into his throat, but nevertheless could not vomit. His face was -flushed. - -The other two experimental subjects had already early shown a pale face. -The other symptoms were the same. The motor unrest increased so much -that the persons flung themselves up, and down, rolled their eyes and -made meaningless motions with their hands and arms. Finally the -agitation subsided, the pupils dilated to the maximum, and the condemned -lay motionless. Masseter spasms and urination were observed in one case. -Death occurred 121, 123, and 129 minutes after entry of the projectile. - -_Summary._ The projectiles filled with approximately 38 mg. of aconitine -nitrate in solid form had, in spite of only insignificant injuries, a -deadly effect after two hours. Poisoning showed 20 to 25 minutes after -injury. The main reactions were salivation, alteration of the pupils, -negative tendon reflexes, motor unrest, and extreme nausea. - - [Signature] MRUGOWSKY - SS Lecturer Oberfuehrer and Office Chief. - - * * * * * - - _Poison Projectile of a Russian 7.65 Caliber Pistol Cartridge_ - - (Perspective view, scale 10:1) - [Illustration] - -The projectile is cut open and ¼ of the lead core (1 segment) is -removed. The lead seal at the bottom of the projectile is not shown in -this illustration. The section is clearly visible on the right half of -the jacket of the projectile. - - Criminological Institute of the Security Police - Department: Chemistry - Journal No. g 15/44 - - _Russian 7.65 mm. Caliber Pistol Cartridge with Poison Projectile_ - - (Stamp on bottom of cartridge case: Geco) - [Illustration] - - Criminological Institute of the Security Police - Department: Chemistry - - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS DR. - EUGEN KOGON[70] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: Do you know anything about experiments with poisons in the -Buchenwald concentration camp? - -WITNESS KOGON: I know of two such cases. The one case was about the turn -of the year 1943-44 or in the late fall of 1943, and the second case was -probably in the summer of 1944. In each case Russian prisoners of war -were used for these experiments. In the first case various preparations -of the so-called alkaloid series were put into noodle soup and -administered to 40 of these prisoners of war who were in Block 46. They, -of course, had no idea what was going on. Two of these prisoners became -so sick that they vomited, one was unconscious, the fourth showed no -symptoms at all. Thereupon, all four were strangled in the crematorium. -They were dissected and the contents of their stomachs and other effects -were determined. The experiment was ordered by the SS court, by the SS -investigating judge, Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Morgen. It was carried out in -the presence of Dr. Ding, Dr. Morgen, Dr. Wehner, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer -and SS judges, and one of the three camp leaders, I do not know whether -it was SS Sturmbannfuehrer Schubert or SS leader Florstedt. The second -experiments— - -Q. Witness, before continuing with the second experiment, I wonder if -you could tell the Tribunal the reason why this poison experiment which -you have just mentioned was carried out? - -A. In the summer of 1943 the SS court in Berlin was trying the former -commander of Buchenwald and later commander of the Lublin concentration -camp in Poland, SS Standartenfuehrer Koch. The trial was reaching its -climax. The investigation had led to very serious charges against Koch. -Here I must mention that SS Obergruppenfuehrer Prince Waldeck, then head -of the SS main district [Oberabschnitt] Fulda-Werra, was personally -opposing Koch, and it was merely this personal antagonism of the two men -which had brought about the trial. A man by the name of Koehler, a -Hauptscharfuehrer in Buchenwald, was arrested by Dr. Morgen and kept in -custody in the Buchenwald concentration camp. This Hauptscharfuehrer -seemed to have testified against Koch. Two or three days later this -Hauptscharfuehrer Koehler was found dead in his cell. A few hours before -he had been quite healthy. He seemed to have taken strong poison. Dr. -Morgen contended that Dr. Hoven, together with the guard, -Hauptscharfuehrer Sommer, had killed Koehler. Koehler was dissected in -the dissecting room in the presence of a scientist from Jena and two of -my comrades. The head of the pathology section was also present. Drugs -of the alkaloid series were found in the stomach of the dead man. The -amount and the specific type was not known. In order to determine the -fatal dosage of poisons of this type, the SS court ordered an experiment -on four Russian prisoners of war. This is the experiment which I have -just described in Block 46. On 20 September 1943, Dr. Hoven was arrested -on Dr. Morgen’s orders and remained in the custody of the SS court until -the end of March 1945. I know the date exactly because on that Saturday -afternoon Dr. Hoven came to Block 50 on his motorcycle, asked me about -Dr. Ding-Schuler, who was not there, and went away again quite -depressed. Half an hour later I learned from the hospital, the -prisoners’ hospital, that Dr. Hoven expected to be arrested himself. - -Q. In other words, Hoven was suspected by Morgen of having done away -with the witness against Koch, is that right? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, will you explain to the Tribunal about his second poison -experiment? - -A. In the summer of 1944—I am not quite sure of the exact date—Dr. -Ding, who was already called Schuler, came from Berlin at the time and -told me that he had a very unpleasant task to perform. He said it was -extremely secret and a few hours later, without my having asked, he told -me details about it in his room. - -I must point out that at this time there was really nothing at all -private or official, that Dr. Schuler would not have told me in order to -get my advice. He realized quite clearly that the cause of National -Socialism was lost. He was only looking for safety. - -He said, “Kogon, can you see any way of getting me out of this affair? I -am supposed to test a poison here on Russian prisoners of war. I have to -report on it immediately. It is a direct order from Mrugowsky. I don’t -know how I can get out of it.” - -He gave me the prescription, the chemical formula of this poison, and I -was to put this prescription in an envelope and seal it in his presence. -In my haste I was not able to read it. It had some code name. I put the -prescription in the envelope and only said to him, because we were -interrupted, “You know my point of view.” I must add here that in long -conversations at night I had tried to explain to him that his only way -out was to do as much as possible for the political prisoners, but that -in serious cases he must, as a human being, refuse to carry out orders -which violated the moral laws. - -He laughed when I said that and replied, “I know your religious and -moral ideas. You know I don’t believe in anything. This way is out of -the question for me; all I can do is comply with the first suggestion -and collaborate with the political prisoners.” - -In this poison case, he went in great haste and excitement to the camp -leader, Sturmbannfuehrer Schubert, whom he had informed beforehand by -telephone, and the commander, Oberfuehrer Pister, who also knew about it -and they all went—I don’t know whether the camp physician was also -present—at any rate, they went to the crematorium, not to Block 46. The -Russian prisoners of war, again, four of them, had been taken there into -the cellar with the 46 hooks on the walls on which the people were -strangled. These four Russians were given this poison. I do not know how -it was administered. As Ding-Schuler told me later, they died in a very -short time. Then they were dissected and cremated. Dr. Ding did not send -a written report on this matter to Berlin. He told me he had to report -on it to Mrugowsky orally. Ding was not only excited about this matter, -but afterwards he was also very secretive about it. He did not want me -to talk about it any more. From indications in his conversation I -learned that there was some connection with experiments in the -Sachsenhausen concentration camp near Oranienburg which Mrugowsky had -performed in Ding’s presence. Prisoners must have been shot there with -poisoned bullets, because Ding said that a Russian prisoner of war had -succeeded in getting hold of a knife and attacking Mrugowsky, but that -the prisoner had been immediately overpowered. - -In any case, Ding did not want to have anything more to do with the -matter, even in my presence. A short time later the prescription and the -sealed envelope were burned by Ding in my presence. He held it over a -candle in my presence and burned it. I could not find out what the -contents were. - - * * * * * - ------ - -[67] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V. - -[68] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 1947, -pp. 11049-11074. - -[69] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V. - -[70] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7, 8 -Jan 1947, pp. 1150-1300. See also testimony of defendant Mrugowsky, sec. -VIII G, vol. II. - - 11. INCENDIARY BOMB EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick were charged -with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct -involving incendiary bomb experiments (par. 6 (L) of the indictment). -The defendants were acquitted on this charge. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the incendiary bomb -experiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendant -Poppendick. An extract from this brief is set forth below on page 640. A -corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these -experiments has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant -Poppendick. It appears below on pages 641 to 643. This argumentation is -followed by selections from the evidence on pages 643 to 653. - - b. Selection From the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST - DEFENDANT POPPENDICK_ - - * * * * * - - _Incendiary Bomb Experiments_ - -Sturmbannfuehrer Ding-Schuler (hereinafter referred to as Ding) carried -out incendiary bomb experiments in the Buchenwald concentration camp -between 19 and 25 November 1943. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._) In order to -ascertain the effectiveness of the drug R 17 and echinacine ointment and -liquid for the treatment of phosphorus burns, five experimental persons -were deliberately burned with ignited phosphorus which was taken from an -incendiary bomb. The resulting burns were very severe, the victims -suffered excruciating pain and permanent injury. The drugs to be tested -were manufactured at the Dr. Madaus Works in Dresden-Radebeul. (_Tr. pp. -1187-90._) - -The report on these experiments (_NO-579, Pros. Ex. 288_) was forwarded -by Ding to the defendants Poppendick and Mrugowsky. (_Tr. pp. 1158, -1188._) The Research Department “V” (for Vonkennel) in Leipzig was also -interested in these experiments. Correspondence by Ding with this -department went through Poppendick. (_Tr. pp. 1158, 1175, 1247, 1267._) -Research Department “V” was a laboratory run by Sturmbannfuehrer -Vonkennel, with funds and material furnished by Grawitz. (_Poppendick 9, -Poppendick Ex. 8_; _Tr. pp. 5589-5592_.) Poppendick was the expert in -Grawitz’ office responsible for the work of that laboratory. (_Tr. p. -1267._) This testimony of Kogon is corroborated by letters from -Vonkennel to Poppendick and Ding to Poppendick concerning typhus -experiments. (_NO-1182, Pros. Ex. 477_; _NO-1184, Pros. Ex. 476_; -_NO-1185, Pros. Ex. 478_.) The latter was actually typed by Kogon for -Ding, as can be seen from the file notation. - - * * * * * - - c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR - DEFENDANT POPPENDICK_ - - * * * * * - -_Experiments with Incendiaries_ - - * * * * * - - _Evaluation of Evidence_ - -The prosecution questioned the witness Kogon about the dispatch of -reports on experiments with incendiaries. He stated: - - “The photos were placed opposite each other, mounted in an - album, described in detail; the result sent in two copies to - Berlin, one to Professor Mrugowsky, the other—here I am not - quite sure—to Oberfuehrer Poppendick. I believe that - Oberfuehrer Poppendick certainly received one report concerning - this matter because Dr. Ding intended to publish a dissertation - on this in a medical journal.” - -The prosecution then referred in this connection, to the entry in the -so-called Ding diary under 5 January 1944 (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_): - - “Records dispatched to the Reich Physician SS with the request - that they be forwarded to the Dr. Madaus Works.” - -The prosecution now thought they would be able to connect these two -pieces of evidence with one another and wants to prove from this that -Poppendick received a regular report, with photos, on experiments with -incendiaries, and thus learned about criminal experiments with -incendiaries in Buchenwald. - -The defense first questioned the persons concerned in Leipzig, in the -form of affidavits, about the previous history of the experiments with -incendiaries—the affidavit of Dr. Koch from the Madaus Works -(_Mrugowsky 103, Mrugowsky Ex. 97_), the affidavit of Kirchert -(_Poppendick 7, Poppendick Ex. 9_), and the affidavit of von Woyrsch -(_Mrugowsky 115, Mrugowsky Ex. 108_), all of these make similar reports -on these events. Each one of these three witnesses, viewing this matter -from different angles, was able to testify under oath that the -correspondence between Dr. Ding and the firm of Madaus did not pass -through Poppendick personally, and that the research section of -Professor Vonkennel also had nothing to do with the whole matter as far -as it took place in Leipzig, but that the connections were somewhat -different in many respects from what might be concluded from the -statement of Kogon. - -For a person like Kogon, it was, of course, difficult to take in the -connections as a whole, as he only occasionally received letters which -had anything to do with the questions dealt with here. On the basis of -letters still available, he can only draw certain retrospective -conclusions today. Therefore, in the formulation of his statements, he -exercises a certain caution, qualifying in advance things as they -happened by remarks such as “I believe,” “certainly,” and so on. (_See -also testimony, Pohl trial, 22 April 1947_;[71] _Poppendick 21, -Poppendick Ex. 20_.) For these reasons the phrase “in this case I am not -quite sure,” relating to Poppendick’s knowledge of illustrated reports -on incendiaries, can only be taken as an indication of the fact that -Kogon did not want Poppendick to be charged, through his sworn -testimony, with the knowledge of these reports, with photographs -concerning incendiaries. Poppendick has definitely declared that he -would certainly have remembered such a report with photographs if he had -received it. In this way then, the uncertain statement of Kogon is -confronted by the definite statement of the defendant, who could not be -accused of any unreliability in the course of his examination. The -contention of the defendant is supported by the three above-mentioned -affidavits which fully confirm this. Kogon then said, however: “A -report, I think * * *”—then again with a certain limitation—“which -Oberfuehrer Poppendick certainly received because Dr. Ding intended to -publish a dissertation on this in a medical journal.” - -Although this last statement was made with somewhat more emphasis, but -still not with complete certainty, the following comment can be made on -it: - -It is certain that Kogon had access to the entire documentary evidence -as introduced in this trial before making his statement. Without doubt -he saw the manuscript of the Ding publication on typhus (_NO-582, Pros. -Ex. 286_) with the stamp of approval “by order of Poppendick,” even if -he did not see it while still in Buchenwald during his stay in the camp. -From this he thought he could deduce that Poppendick must be the person -responsible—in spite of the words “by order”—for the approval of -scientific publications. Kogon knew from his work in Buchenwald that -Ding meant to publish a pamphlet on the treatment of burns. He therefore -took it for granted that the only way of getting official permission was -via Poppendick, whereas actually Poppendick authorized these requests -and signed them “by order of” in every case only when given special -permission by Grawitz. Neither Kogon nor we know whether such a -manuscript was ever actually sent in for publication. Even if it was -actually sent in, it is not certain that Poppendick had to grant -permission for its publication. If Poppendick actually authorized the -publication of such a pamphlet “by order of”—a fact which cannot be -proved—there is a 100 percent probability, taking the typhus manuscript -(_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286_) as an example, that in such a publication the -question of artificially inflicting wounds on human bodies would not -have been openly mentioned but would have been just as carefully veiled -as was done in the manuscript concerning typhus treatment. - -It is quite obvious, though, and even the prosecution will not dispute -this, that Poppendick otherwise played no part whatever in the -incendiary bomb experiments, and had no contact with the authorities -responsible for them, such as the Madaus Works, Dr. Ding, etc., whereby -he might have been informed of what was going on in Buchenwald also in -regard to those incendiary bomb experiments. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ -Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page -NO-579 288 Extracts from a report on the findings 644 - of 2 January 1944, on a skin - ointment—R 17—for phosphorus burns. -NO-1080 A, 219 A, E, F Exposures of the witness Maria 901 -E, F Kusmierczuk who underwent - sulfanilamide and bone experiments - while an inmate of the Ravensbrueck - concentration camp. (_See Selections - from the Photographic Evidence of the - Prosecution._) -NO-1082 A, 214 A, C Exposures of the witness Jadwiga Dzido 903 -C who underwent sulfanilamide and bone - experiments while an inmate of the - Ravensbrueck concentration camp. (_See - Selections from the Photographic - Evidence of the Prosecution._) - - _Defense Documents_ - -Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document -Mrugowsky Mrugowsky Ex. Extracts from the affidavit of Udo von 647 -115 108 Woyrsch, 3 May 1947, concerning - experiments on combating injuries due - to phosphorus incendiary bombs. - - _Testimony_ - -Extract from the testimony of prosecution witness Eugen Kogon 648 -Extract from the testimony of defendant Mrugowsky 651 - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-579 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 288 - - EXTRACTS FROM A REPORT ON THE FINDINGS OF 2 JANUARY 1944, ON A SKIN - OINTMENT—R 17—FOR PHOSPHORUS BURNS - -_EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS_ - - * * * * * - -_EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS_ - -I. Application of the phosphorus-caoutchouc mixture and immediate -removal— - -1. With R 17. - -_19 November._ The mixture was dropped on a smooth spot of skin on the -forearm and immediately thereafter wiped off with a tampon dipped in R -17. R 17 quickly dissolved the phosphorus and the caoutchouc. Subsequent -checks showed a complete cessation of phosphorescence. The spot of skin -showed an increased temperature until 14 December, as the testers -ascertained by placing the backs of their hands against it. - -2. With CuSO_{4}. - -_19 November._ The mixture, which had been applied to a smooth spot of -skin on the forearm, was removed with a 2 percent solution of -copper-sulphate. There appeared a blackish-brownish, strongly viscous -mass with a metallic sheen which, when rubbed off, spread over the -entire experimentation area. After an initial formation of black smoke -(phosphorus fumes) and a strong glow, the phosphorescence, because of -the formation of a copper-phosphate coating, ceased almost immediately. -It seems to be possible that phosphorus, if it comes in contact with -small skin wounds, is assimilated into the body by resorption. This spot -of skin likewise showed an increase in temperature until 14 December. - -3. With water. - -_19 November._ It was always possible to remove the mixture from the -skin by water. However, in this case pronounced phosphorescence lasting -several minutes and phosphorus fumes were to be observed. - -II. Lighting of the phosphorus-caoutchouc mixture and treatment: - -1. With R 17. - -_a. Immediate ignition._ - -_25 November._ The mixture was applied to a skin area of 6 × 3 cm. and -immediately ignited. After burning for 20 seconds, it was extinguished -with water and then wiped off with R 17. A burn appeared, with a -yellowish induration of the skin. Later a thin scab formed. After 3 -days, the wound was treated with _liquid echinacine_. On 11 December the -scab fell off; the surface of the wound was dry and rosy red. Epithelium -formed very rapidly; on 21 December only 1/5 of the surface remained -without epithelium. On 29 December this spot too was almost healed. - -_25 November._ The mixture was applied to a skin area of the same size -(6 × 3 cm.) and immediately ignited. It burned for 55 seconds until it -went out by itself. The burned spot was wiped off with R 17. There -appeared a yellowish-brown burn which exhibited a cavity at the proximal -end and a blister at the distal end. An elastic scab formed. On the -fourth day the wound was treated with _echinacine ointment_. Thereupon, -on 3 December, the scab began to slough off; on 10 December the wound -was dry and closed; on 13 December only the edge of the wound still -showed a scab and the main part of the wound was covered with fine -granulation. The wound continued to become smaller until 29 December -without healing over. - -_b. Ignition after 30 seconds._ - -_19 November._ The mixture was applied to 2 sq. cm. of skin. After 30 -seconds it was ignited and after burning for 40 seconds it was wiped off -with R 17. A dry burn appeared. During the following days a small -oedematous swelling developed. The wound was treated with _liquid -echinacine_. Thereafter, the swelling subsided rapidly, so that on 1 -December there remained a clear, dry wound without necrosis. -Subsequently to this a broad zone of epithelization formed and by 29 -December the wound had healed with the exception of 0.5 sq. cm. still -lacking epithelium. - -_19 November._ The mixture was again applied to 2 sq. cm. of skin, -ignited after 30 seconds, but treated with R 17 only after burning 60 -seconds. Here too a dry burn appeared, however with severe reddening and -pain in the surrounding area. The wound formed a necrotic coating. On -the third day it was treated with a 10 percent solution of cod-liver-oil -ointment. On 19 December it was circumscribed and dry. A slow -epithelization began. Later the wounded skin area became similar to the -smooth surrounding area. On 29 December the wound had not yet healed -over. - -_c. Application to a piece of cloth covering the skin._ - -_25 November._ The phosphorus-caoutchouc mixture, applied to a piece of -cloth covering the skin was ignited. Sixty-seven seconds elapsed before -it had burned itself out. The piece of cloth, except for a small -remainder, was carbonized. After it was wiped off with R 17 there -appeared on skin a burn with a central blister which later developed to -a thin, elastic scab. After 3 days the wound was treated with echinacine -ointment. Until 3 December cleaning of the wound took place; at this -date it was dry, rosy red, and closed; a fine granulation covered it. -Thereupon rapid epithelization began. On 29 December it was not yet -healed over. - -2. With CuSO_{4}. - -_a. Immediate ignition._ - -_25 November._ The mixture was applied to a skin area of 6 × 3 cm., and -immediately ignited. After burning 20 seconds it was extinguished with -water, and then wiped off with copper-sulphate solution. During this -operation the entire epidermis separated from the area of the wound. An -oedematous swelling of the surrounding area, 12 × 13 cm. in extent and a -thick scab formed. Treatment took place with _liquid echinacine_. On 7 -December the necrosis began to slough off, and gradual epithelization -took place. On 21 December one-third of the area of the wound was still -without epithelium (cf. II/1/a/aa). On 29 December the wound was healed -over. - -_25 November._ The mixture was again applied to a skin area of 6 × 3 cm. -and immediately ignited. After it had burned itself out in 60 seconds, -the burned area was wiped off with copper-sulphate solution. A -brownish-grey burn with thickening of the skin appeared. The thickening -developed to a strong scab. It was treated with a 10-percent solution of -cod-liver oil ointment. The surrounding area remained very red and -painful. On 10 December a subcutaneous suppuration appeared at the edge -of the wound. Consequently the treatment with cod-liver oil was replaced -by _liquid echinacine_. On 13 December the scab separated from the -greater part of the wound, but the surrounding area remained more -inflamed than in the corresponding experiment with R 17 (cf. II/1/a/bb). -The granulation was coarse and uneven. On 29 December the wound was not -yet healed over; epithelization advanced only slowly. - -_b. Ignition after 30 seconds._ - -_19 November._ The phosphorus-caoutchouc mixture was applied to 2 sq. -cm. of skin and left there for 30 seconds; then it was ignited and after -burning for 60 seconds wiped off with copper-sulphate solution. A -brownish-black viscous mass formed; the dry wound discolored to a -blackish-grey. Thereupon a thick crust formed and a considerable -oedematous swelling of the area surrounding the wound developed. -Treatment took place with echinacine ointment. The swelling subsided -more slowly than in the treatment with R 17 (cf. II/1/b/aa). On 5 -December the wound was without necrosis, with a wide zone of -epithelization. On 29 December it had healed over except for 1 sq. cm. -lacking in epithelium (cf. II/1/bb/aa). - -_c. Application to a piece of cloth covering the skin._ - -_25 November._ The skin was covered with a piece of cloth 6 × 3 cm. to -which the mixture was applied and then ignited. After it had burned -itself out in 57 seconds there remained of the piece of cloth only small -carbonized remnants. After being wiped off with copper-sulphate solution -a yellowish, rather strong thickening of the skin appeared. The wound -was treated with a 10-percent solution of cod-liver oil. A few days -later little blisters appeared, which then dried up on 5 December. On 9 -December, thickened, shred-like necroses began to peel off, and a dark -red surface with rough, uneven granulations developed. The -epithelization progressed only slowly. On 29 December the wound was not -yet healed over. - -3. With water. - -_19 November._ The mixture was applied to a 2 sq. cm. of skin and -ignited 30 seconds later. After 45 seconds the fire was extinguished -with a damp cloth and the burned spot washed off with water. A burn of -parchment-like, dry, greenish-brownish appearance appeared. The wound -was treated with _echinacine_ ointment. On 3 December it was clean, dry, -and without necrosis. On 5 December the epithelization began, which then -made rapid strides, so that on 23 December the wound, in contrast to the -treatment with a 10-percent solution of cod-liver oil, was considerably -smaller. On 29 December it was not yet healed over, but was only half as -large as the wound treated with a 10-percent solution of cod-liver oil. - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF MRUGOWSKY - DOCUMENT 115 - MRUGOWSKY DEFENSE EXHIBIT 108 - - EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF UDO VON WOYRSCH, 3 MAY 1947, CONCERNING - EXPERIMENTS ON COMBATING INJURIES DUE TO PHOSPHORUS INCENDIARY BOMBS - - * * * * * - -From 20 April 1940 to 12 February 1947 I was Higher SS and Police Leader -in Military District IV and main district leader [Oberabschnittsfuehrer] -in Dresden. In this capacity I was responsible for measures -counteracting the damage caused by the air war. I knew Dr. Hans Madaus, -co-partner of the firm Dr. Madaus & Co., in Dresden. He told me that -experiments on the combating of injuries caused by phosphorus incendiary -bombs were being carried on in his laboratory with rabbits. On the -occasion of an inspection of the whole pharmaceutical lay-out of the -firm, I inspected, at his suggestion, in particular numerous hothouses -and also the above-mentioned experiments. As far as I remember I -inspected the experiments once again at a later date—at that time I -called in Dr. Kirchert as medical expert, who was the physician of the -Higher SS and Police Leader. - -The experiments seemed to me to be so successful that I reported about -them to Reich Physician SS and Police Dr. Grawitz; that is, I called his -attention to these experiments on the combating of injuries caused by -phosphorus incendiary bombs, which in my opinion were particularly -successful. - - * * * * * - -I do not remember Dr. Ding, who, as I have learned only now, is supposed -to have carried on experiments in Buchenwald with the preparation of the -Madaus firm. It is possible that when visiting Dresden he paid a brief -visit to me with Kirchert. But I do not recall such a visit. - -I want to emphasize that the experiments at the Madaus firm made a big -impression upon me, because I saw that the rabbits used in those -experiments were treated very well. The content of the phosphorus -incendiary bombs which was rubbed onto their skins and then wiped off -with preparation R 17 did not seem to cause any kind of pain to the -animals, because after they were returned to their cage, immediately -after the experiments, they immediately ate again and did not show any -signs of discomfort. - -Professor Dr. Joachim Mrugowsky is personally known to me. He was not -mentioned in any way nor did he participate in the matter of incendiary -bombs. Since I know him, I would certainly remember if he had -participated in any way at all or if his name had been mentioned. - -Dr. Helmut Poppendick has also never been mentioned in any way in -connection with this matter. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS EUGEN KOGON[72] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: Witness, I had just asked you whether or not you know -anything about experiments conducted at Buchenwald with the phosphorous -content of incendiary bombs. - -WITNESS KOGON: * * * As far as I can recall, I was told by Dr. Ding in -the spring of 1944 that he had been given orders by Professor Dr. -Mrugowsky in collaboration with the firm of Madaus & Co. at -Dresden-Radebeul to carry out experiments on human beings with regard to -the effect of a drug against the contents of phosphorous-caoutchouc -incendiary bombs. I had the impression that the idea for this experiment -had come from Dr. Ding and had been given to Dr. Mrugowsky by him, and -then he had obtained permission to carry out this experiment. On the -part of the firm Madaus, negotiations were led by a certain Dr. Koch. He -had a drug which he called R 17 and which was used by the German -population after attacks in which incendiary bombs were dropped. - -By way of Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Koch and the higher police leader of -the Dresden sector, the contents of phosphorus incendiary bombs were -sent to Buchenwald, and four experimental subjects from Block 46, who -had survived other experiments, had this phosphorus liquid applied to -their forearms. The whole mass was then ignited and was then treated in -various manners. In the case of one experimental subject, water was used -in order to wipe off the liquid, and in other cases a damp rag was -applied, and in the last case R 17 was applied. Several experiments were -carried out on these four subjects. - -In one instance the drug R 17 was applied immediately after the mass had -been ignited; in another instance, after approximately five minutes, and -in yet another case, after thirty minutes. After the mass had burned the -arm, serious burns developed which were observed for two weeks -afterwards. The experiment was conducted by the Special Section 5 at -Leipzig, and photographs were taken of the wounds. Previously -experiments on animals had been carried out in Block 40 on rabbits. -These experiments were conducted in the same manner, and the various -results were also photographed, and the photographs were compared with -each other. Then they were put into an album with exact descriptions and -the results were sent to Berlin—two copies. One was sent to Professor -Mrugowsky, and the other was sent to Oberfuehrer Poppendick, but I am -not quite sure about that. I believe that Oberfuehrer Poppendick must -surely have received a report on this matter because Dr. Ding intended -to write an article about this in a German medical journal. - -Q. Now, you have mentioned an album report. Did you see this report? - -A. I personally made the report after having it dictated to me by Dr. -Ding. - -Q. I will ask you if the document which I will now have handed to you, -and which is Document NO-579, is the report on these incendiary bomb -experiments which you have described. - -MR. MCHANEY: I will ask that the original of this document be passed up -to the Tribunal. - -I didn’t hear any answer to the question. - -A. Yes. It is a carbon copy of the report with the original photographs. - -MR. MCHANEY: I offer Document NO-579 as Prosecution Exhibit 288, and I -will ask that the original be passed up to the Tribunal for inspection. -I will ask that the Tribunal turn particularly to page 15 and following -of the exhibit itself. Your Honor, I think you would find the pictures -more easy to discern in the original document. Page 15 and following are -pictures of burns on the arms of human beings. Witness, did you see any -of the experimental subjects who were burned with this phosphorus? - -WITNESS KOGON: I personally saw all the experimental subjects because -this experiment was carried out in the private room of Dr. Ding in Block -50 and in the library of the Hygiene Institute in Block 50. The reason -for this was that the experiment in Block 46 among the experimental -subjects that were located there, and who were destined for other -purposes, would have caused far too much excitement. - -Q. Were these burns very severe? - -A. As far as I can recall they were very severe in three out of the four -cases. - -Q. Did the experimental subjects suffer any pain? - -A. Kapo Arthur Dietzsch had suggested that the subjects should be given -an anesthetic as soon as they came into Block 50, so that violent scenes -could be avoided, and in Block 50, which was completely different from -Block 46, having persons handcuffed, as was the common practice in Block -46, was to be avoided. It was like that at least in the first -experiment, but I only saw the subjects. I did not personally witness -the experiments, and I saw the subjects before as well as afterwards. -During the first experiment at least, the subjects were given an -anesthetic, and after about half an hour they regained consciousness and -complained of very severe pains. You could see that they were really -suffering very badly. I must confess that I personally, after having -looked at the photographs, almost became sick. - -Q. Do you know whether the injuries which they received are permanent? - -A. In the case of some of the wounds, it is completely impossible that -they will ever become completely healed; very deep scars must have -remained because the wounds were big and were as deep as two or two and -a half centimeters. - -Q. Do you know whether any of the experimental subjects died? - -A. Four persons were returned to Block 46, and I do not know anything -about the future fate which awaited them there. I especially do not know -if they were used for further experiments. - -Q. Do you know the nationality of the experimental persons used? - -A. No. However, all four wore the green triangle to signify that they -were habitual criminals, and they were Germans. - -Q. And you state that the purpose of these experiments was to test -certain chemical preparations of the Madaus Company in treating the -burns. - -A. Yes. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY[73] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. FLEMMING: Now, I come to the incendiary bomb experiments. Dr. Kogon -during his testimony frequently spoke of an experiment by Dr. Ding with -a phosphorus-caoutchouc incendiary bomb, and he said that you ordered -this experiment. - -DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: I did not know who ordered this experiment. I found -out about it only from the report which was drawn up after the -experiment had been terminated. This report has been put in evidence -here as a document. From this it can be seen that animal experiments -were also carried out. I assume that these were not performed in Block -46, but in Block 50, which was under my supervision. I went with the -report to Grawitz and asked him if he knew any more about this matter. I -asked him if I was correct in my assumption that some of the experiments -took place in Block 50 and if so, to tell Dr. Ding in future to confine -himself to his Block 46 in such matters, which was directly under -Grawitz. Grawitz answered thereupon that it did not make any difference -one way or the other, and I should not be so fussy. I also know that -after a few weeks Ding was looking for this report and called me up and -asked me if I had it. I no longer had it at that time as I had given it -to Grawitz, and it was in his files where it belonged. - -Q. Kogon also testified that the experimental subjects had suffered -serious pain and had incurred wounds from 2 to 2.5 centimeters deep, -which led to the formation of extensive scars. I show you now Document -NO-579, Prosecution Exhibit 288 and ask you to comment on this document -and Dr. Kogon’s testimony? - -(The document is handed to the witness.) - -A. The first part of this document deals with the rabbit experiments. In -the second part, however, there are pictures of experiments on human -beings. These pictures show the place on the arm where the experiment -was made. Kogon said that this burning was done in such a way that the -mass of phosphorus was burning for quite awhile. The document, however, -proves exactly the contrary. The length of time during which the matter -was burning was not long, but the period between the time when the -mixture was applied and the time it was ignited was long; that is -possibly the reason for this misunderstanding. Moreover in the -description of the individual cases, it can be seen that already on 29 -December, in other words four days after the experiment, the burn was -almost healed, or had greatly reduced in size. In one case there was -still an open wound of 0.5 centimeter but there is no mention anywhere -of any deeper wounds, but only of purely superficial epidermal wounds. -There is constant mention of the fact that the wounds healed over nicely -and in some cases the wound was completely healed four days after the -experiments. Wounds 2½ centimeters deep, or large scars could not have -occurred and that testimony of Kogon is false. In this case let me point -out that he was not speaking from his own knowledge. During the first -discussion of these incendiary bomb experiments, he said he had seen the -experimental subjects, and then in the same interrogation he later says -this was not the case. In other words, he is reporting what he has heard -and not what he knows at first hand. - -Q. I am submitting to the Tribunal Mrugowsky 56, and it will be -Mrugowsky Exhibit 50. I should like to read from page two: - - “Treatment of phosphorus burns with ‘R 17.’ - - “The dropping of phosphorus incendiary bombs made it necessary - to find an adequate method of treatment. As the copper-sulphate - solution hitherto in use did not give satisfactory results, the - firm of Dr. Madaus in Dresden looked for a different solvent and - produced a liquid carbon tetrachloride which was called ‘R 17.’ - The efficacy of R 17 had been proved by means of experiments on - rabbits carried out by the firm of Dr. Madaus. - - “After the completion of these rabbit tests, Dr. Madaus asked - the Higher SS and Police Leader von Woyrsch, Dresden, to come - and see the tests. As my emergency office was in the building of - Gruppenfuehrer von Woyrsch, he asked me to accompany him to the - firm of Madaus in my capacity as a doctor and to watch these - tests. That was in the autumn of 1943. At the request of - Gruppenfuehrer von Woyrsch and the firm of Madaus, I reported to - the Reich Physician SS and Police the results achieved by the - firm of Madaus in the treatment of phosphorus burns and - suggested that the drug R 17 be made known to the air-raid - precaution dispensaries. Grawitz promised to have another test - made. - - “Some time afterward he sent Dr. Ding to Dresden for this - purpose in his capacity as health expert, and instructed me to - make arrangements for Ding to see the results achieved there, by - the firm of Madaus, with R 17. I arranged this. Ding came to - Dresden and saw the above-mentioned tests in my presence, on the - premises of the Madaus firm. Afterward he declared that, on the - orders of the Reich Physician SS in Buchenwald, he would also - test the efficacy of the drug on rabbits. He requested the firm - of Madaus to put the drug R 17 at his disposal. Immediately - after inspecting the firm of Madaus he left Dresden. - - “I also know that Dr. Ding asked the office of the Higher SS and - Police Leader to procure for him the filling of an English - incendiary bomb, which as far as I know was done through the - Commissioner of the Police of Leipzig. Dr. Ding had the drug R - 17 and the incendiary bomb collected. - - “I also know that Ding made a report on his experiments. I know - this because Dr. Ding asked my office in Dresden several times, - in writing and by telephone, if they had this report, as he - could not find it. It was supposed to be a report with - photographs. I do not know if the report went through my office, - as I was in Dresden only one day a week. At the time when Ding - was looking for the report it was not in my office. I assume, - therefore, that he sent it direct to the firm of Madaus, as they - were interested in the results of his test. - - “When, after a considerable time, I still had not heard from the - Reich Physician whether the drug R 17 was to be made known to - the air-raid precaution dispensaries, I asked the Reich - Physician about it at a meeting. He then declared that the drug - would not be introduced, as it only possessed - phosphorus-dissolving properties, but did not directly - contribute to the healing of the burns. However, a drug was in - preparation elsewhere that combined both qualities and this - would be introduced.” - -I submit further the last paragraph of Dr. Morgen’s affidavit. -(_Mrugowsky 23, Mrugowsky Ex. 26._) Dr. Morgen says here: - - “While I was making observations in Block 46 I paid repeated - surprise visits in order to inspect the running of the Block. - Once, when I paid a surprise visit to Block 46, examinations on - the treatment of wounds caused by phosphorus incendiaries were - being carried out. - - “As I arrived a big strong prisoner came into the room laughing. - On each of his two upper arms there were applied on a space - about 1 centimeter wide and 5 centimeters long, some parts of - the contents of a phosphorus incendiary bomb. These spots on - both upper arms were treated with various ointments. During the - discussion with Dr. Ding I was informed that the experimental - persons volunteered for the experiment. They received the diet - for sick persons, a packet of cigarettes, and for one month they - did not have to work. In the case of the inmate whose treatment - I witnessed by chance, I had the definite impression that he was - a volunteer.” - - * * * * * - ------ - -[71] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V. - -[72] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7, 8 -Jan 1947, pp. 1150-1290. - -[73] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 27, 28, -31 March and 2, 3 April 1947, pp. 5000-5244, 5334-5464. - - 12. PHLEGMON EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The prosecution introduced evidence calculated to show that inhumane -acts and atrocities, as generally alleged in paragraph 6 of the -indictment, were committed in the course of phlegmon experiments. These -experiments were not specifically described in the subparagraphs of -paragraph 6 of the indictment which particularized 12 specific types of -experimentation. On this charge the defendants Poppendick, Oberheuser, -and Fischer were acquitted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the phlegmon experiments -is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Gebhardt. An -extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 654 to 655. A -corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these -experiments has been selected from the final plea for defendant -Gebhardt. It appears below on pages 655 to 657. This argumentation is -followed by selections from the evidence on pages 657 to 669. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT - GEBHARDT_ - - * * * * * - - _Sepsis (Phlegmon) Experiments_ - -Sepsis experiments were performed in the Dachau concentration camp -beginning in the autumn of 1942. These experiments were carried out in -order to test the effectiveness of biochemical treatment of sepsis and -related diseases. - -The witness Stoehr testified concerning these experiments. He stated -that sepsis was artificially provoked by infecting with pus the -concentration camp inmates who were used as subjects. (_Tr. pp. 578, -579._) He knew of at least two series of experiments. In each of these -series approximately half of the experimental inmates were treated by -biochemical means and the other half with sulfanilamide. The first -series consisted of 20 German concentration camp inmates of whom seven -died as a result. For the second series, 40 clergymen of various -nationalities were selected and 12 died as a result of the experiments. -(_Tr. pp. 581, 582._) The experimental subjects did not volunteer. (_Tr. -p. 590._) See also the Review of Proceedings of the General Military -Court in the case of the _United States_ vs. _Weiss, et al._ (_NO-856, -Pros. Ex. 125._) - -It is quite clear that the biochemical experiments performed in Dachau -were complementary to the sulfanilamide experiments by Gebhardt in -Ravensbrueck. This is shown by the fact that in September 1942, while -the sulfanilamide experiments were still in progress, Gebhardt received -a copy of a report on the biochemical experiments in Dachau from -Grawitz. (_NO-409, Pros. Ex. 249._) This report shows on its face that -approximately eight cases of sepsis were artificially provoked. The -report dealt with the results obtained from experiments carried out on -40 concentration camp inmates in treating sepsis, phlegmon, furuncles, -abcesses, and nephrosis, among others. - -Ten of the experimental subjects died. The report also covered three -sepsis cases in Auschwitz, all of whom died. It concluded with the -statement that the experiments were being continued. - -The case history of one of the experimental subjects artificially -infected with pus in November 1942 shows the horrible pain which these -victims suffered. (_NO-994, Pros. Ex. 251._) - -That the defendants Gebhardt and Fischer had more than a casual -connection with the sepsis experiments in Dachau is proved by a -handwritten notation by Gebhardt on a letter written by Grawitz to -Himmler on 7 September 1942, attaching copies of the preliminary report -by Gebhardt on his sulfanilamide experiments, together with the report -on the sepsis experiments in Dachau. (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473._) This -note reads as follows: - - “16 September 1942. Settled, after conversation with Reich - Leader SS. Obersturmfuehrer F. Fischer has been given new - instructions for Ravensbrueck _and Dachau_. Gebhardt.” [Emphasis - supplied.] - - c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT - GEBHARDT_[74] - - * * * * * - - _Phlegmon Experiments_ - -In the course of the hearing of the evidence, the prosecution submitted -documents and interrogated witnesses with the intention of proving that -apart from other medical experiments, experiments were also carried out -on the treatment of phlegmon. In the indictment itself these -experiments, which were carried out at Dachau, are not mentioned. In -view of Article IV of the Ordinance of Military Government for Germany, -which expressly states that the indictment should list the counts in -sufficient detail, it must be assumed that in this case a properly made -charge does not exist. - -As far as the participation of the defendant Gebhardt is concerned, the -documents submitted by the prosecution show by themselves that he had -nothing to do with the execution of these experiments. It was only later -that he learned of the experiments carried out at Dachau, as -unequivocally proved by the letter of Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz to -Reich Leader SS Himmler of 29 August 1942, referring to the biochemical -treatment of sepsis, which was submitted by the prosecution as NO-409, -Prosecution Exhibit 249. The defendant Gebhardt learned of these -experiments on 3 September 1942, on the occasion of the visit of Reich -Physician SS Dr. Grawitz to Ravensbrueck in connection with the -sulfanilamide experiments in this camp. The defendant Gebhardt wrote on -the margin of this document the remark “seen and read”. This remark -alone shows that he could only have learned subsequently of these -experiments, and especially that he did not approve of them. If it had -been the contrary, he certainly would have made some other notation on -the document, as for instance, “agreed”, or else he would have shown his -approval in a similar way. On the witness stand the defendant Gebhardt -explained in detail to the Tribunal what his opinion of these -experiments was. These experiments demonstrate unequivocally that they -were deliberately initiated in ignorance of, and in contradiction to, -the recognized rules of orthodox medicine. As also demonstrated by the -evidence the Reich Leader SS Himmler did not conform to orthodox -medicine but wanted to promote independently one patent solution out of -a variety of suggestions and opinions. Nearest to his conception, beside -his inclination towards theories of biological selection, were -biochemistry, homeopathy, and mesmerism, i. e., those schools of -medicine which, contrary to the theories of orthodox medicine do not -combat certain symptoms of a disease but by means of the so-called -stimulation theory want to bring about a change of the general physical -disposition. The defendant Gebhardt, when on the witness stand, clearly -explained this attitude of Himmler, which among other things resulted in -rejection of any criticism by orthodox medicine, relying exclusively on -his biochemical experts. - -The evidence, however, has further shown that after having learned of -the letter of Reich Physician SS Grawitz of 29 August 1942 (_NO-409, -Pros. Ex. 249_) and with the object of convincing Himmler of the -futility of these experiments, the defendant Gebhardt himself performed -experiments on patients with these biochemical remedies in his clinic at -Hohenlychen, and that he succeeded in convincing Himmler of the -inefficacy of these remedies. In this connection I refer to the -statements of the defendant Gebhardt himself and to the affidavits of -Dr. Jaedicke and Dr. Brunner, which I submitted to the Tribunal. - -When examining the legal conclusions which can be drawn from the facts -presented above, we may arrive at the following results: - -The defendant Gebhardt did not commit any act which had any causative -connection with these experiments. He learned about these experiments -only after the event, and then he did everything in his power to prevent -further experiments of this kind. The prosecution was not able to -produce evidence that such experiments had been carried out at all after -3 September 1942. All this proves that in view of the missing causal -connection and absence of premeditation there cannot be any question of -criminal action on the part of the defendant Gebhardt. It is -acknowledged in the criminal law of all civilized nations that knowledge -acquired after events is not sufficient to prove the existence of a -criminal action. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - Doc. No. Pros. Ex. Description of Document Page - No. -NO-409 249 Report from Grawitz to Himmler, 29 August 657 - 1942, concerning experiments with - biochemical remedies conducted at the Dachau - and Auschwitz concentration camps. -NO-2734 473 Extracts of letter from Grawitz to Himmler, 7 660 - September 1942, and report on gas gangrene - experiments. - - _Testimony_ - -Extract from the testimony of prosecution witness Heinrich W. Stoehr 664 -Extract from the testimony of defendant Gebhardt 667 - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-409 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 249 - - REPORT FROM GRAWITZ TO HIMMLER, 29 AUGUST 1942, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS - WITH BIOCHEMICAL REMEDIES CONDUCTED AT THE DACHAU AND AUSCHWITZ - CONCENTRATION CAMPS - -The Reich Leader SS Berlin W 15, 29 August 1942 -Reich Physician SS and Police Knesebeckstr. 50/51 -Telephone: 924249.924351.924373. [Stamp] -924406 Personal Staff -Az.: 738/IV/42 Reich Leader SS - G 213 - -Subject: Biochemical treatment of sepsis, etc., with biochemical - remedies. -To the Reich Leader SS H. Himmler -Berlin SW 11 Prinz Albrechtstrasse 8 - -Reich Leader, - -With regard to previous results of biochemical treatment of sepsis and -other cases of illness, I beg to submit the following provisional -report. - -1. The following _40 cases_ were treated with biochemical remedies in -the SS hospital _Dachau_ in the time mentioned in the report. Besides -septic processes, such diseases were treated where a decisive change for -the better should be achieved by means of biochemistry. - - Phlegmonous-purulent processes 17 - Sepsis 8 - Furuncles and abscesses 2 - Infected operational incisions 1 - Malaria 5 - Pleural empyema 3 - Septic endocarditis 1 - Nephrosis 1 - Chronic sciatica 1 - Gall stones 1 - -According to the indications of the biochemistry applied to the -different cases, we used the following remedies: - - Potassium phosphoricum D6 - Ferrum phosphoricum D6 and D12 - Silicea D6 - Sodium muraticum D6 - Calcium phosphoricum D6 - Sodium sulfuricum D6 - Magnesium phosphoricum D6 - Sodium phosphoricum D6 - Calcium fluoratum D6 - -The cases of sepsis were mostly artificially provoked. - -Up to now we found that the unfavorable course of the severe cases could -scarcely be stopped by means of biochemical remedies. All sepsis cases -died. The malaria cases were not influenced by it. - -The cases of extended purulent processes, with development of abscesses, -the pleuralempyeata, the septic endocarditis, the nephrosis, the chronic -sciatica and the gall stones showed no definite influence from -biochemical treatment. Insofar as they were conducted with positive -results, they did not show a different result from the ones where, -according to medical experience, patients were restricted to staying in -bed without receiving any special treatment. - -The impression of a favorable effect on morbid cases of sickness by -biochemical means proved to be satisfactory in five cases only, four of -which were comparatively slight. The fifth case involved a 17-day-old -child with severe furunculosis. In this case an improvement set in only -a few days after treatment had been applied. However, an error occurred -in the experimental procedure, for at the beginning of the treatment a -sulfanilamide preparation was used. - -The strong formation of pus, clearly noticeable in a few cases, is -perhaps due to the biochemical remedies applied. The doses of sugar, -which were frequently given and mainly consisted of pure milk sugar in -the form of biochemical tablets, probably promoted the effect. - -Experiments for orientation are to be made. In a case of a joint mould -the antiseptic potassium phosphoricum D 6 was given as a prophylactic -because the incision of the operation was greatly endangered by -infection. In spite of that, the temperature rose to 39° on the -following day. Consequently, the biochemical treatment could not prevent -appearance or breaking-out of an infection, although potassium -phosphoricum D 6 was given immediately and intensively. - -It is also to be noted that very soon all the seriously ill cases flatly -refused to take biochemical tablets, because it meant torture to them to -take the tablets every 5 minutes, even at night. - -Finally it must be said that from a total number of 40 cases there are 1 -positive case and 4 positive cases with certain reservations, against 35 -failures, of which 10 ended fatally. - -The experiments in Dachau are being continued. - -Besides the hitherto existing program, special attention is directed to -research of twin cases in similar conditions, of which one will receive -an allopathical, the second a biochemical treatment. - - [Marginal note.] Seen at Ravensbrueck 3-9-1942, [Signature] K. - GEBHARDT - -2. In the concentration camp of Auschwitz, three typical cases of -sepsis, which developed from phlegmons, were treated—according to -prescription—with potassium phosphoricum D 4. In none of these cases a -therapeutical influence on the progress of the disease could be -observed. All 3 cases ended fatally. - -The experiments are being continued. - - [Signature] GRAWITZ - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-2734 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 473 - -EXTRACTS OF LETTER FROM GRAWITZ TO HIMMLER, 7 SEPTEMBER 1942, AND REPORT - ON GAS GANGRENE EXPERIMENTS - -The Reich Leader SS Berlin, W 15, 7 September 1942 -Reichsarzt SS and Police Knesebeckstrasse 50/51 -Telephone: 924249. 924351. [Rubber stamp] -924373. 924406 (Personal Staff Reich Leader SS -File No. 748/IV/42 Archives) - (File No. AR/31/13) - [Signature] GEBHARDT - -Subject: 1. _Experiments by SS Brigadefuehrer Gebhardt on the Combating - of Gas Gangrene._ - 2. Experiments on the Treatment of Sepsis by Biochemistry. - -Enclosures: -2-X -To the Reich Leader SS H. Himmler -Berlin - -Reich Leader: - -Attached please find a provisional report by SS Brigadefuehrer Professor -Dr. Gebhardt on his clinical-surgical experiments at Ravensbrueck -concentration camp, furthermore a concluding provisional report on -experiments on the biochemical treatment of sepsis as performed at -Dachau concentration camp. - - [Signature] GRAWITZ - - [Rubber stamp] } [Handwritten] - } 16 September 1942 -Personal Staff RF-SS Enclosures } Settled, after conversation with -In: 9 September 1942 } RF-SS. Obersturmfuehrer F. -Journal No. AR/40/7/42 2 } Fischer has been given new -? RF } instructions for Ravensbrueck - } and Dachau. - [Signature] GEBHARDT -Copy! - [Rubber stamp] - (Personal Staff Reich Leader SS Archives) - (File No. AR/31/13) - -Professor Dr. K. Gebhardt -SS Brigadefuehrer and Brigadier General of the Waffen SS -To the Reichsarzt SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz - -Provisional Report on Clinical Experiments at Ravensbrueck Concentration -Camp for Women - -By order of the Reich Leader SS, I started on 20 July 1942 at -Ravensbrueck concentration camp for women on a series of clinical -experiments with the aim of analyzing the sickness known as gas -gangrene, which does not take a uniform course, and of testing the -efficacy of the known therapeutic medicaments. - -In addition, the simple infections of injuries which occur as symptoms -of war surgery had also to be tested, and a new chemo-therapeutic -treatment apart from the known surgical measures had to be tried out. - - * * * * * - -I appointed SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Fischer as co-worker. SS Oberfuehrer -Dr. Blumenrent put the complete surgical instruments and medicaments at -my disposal. SS Standartenfuehrer Mrugowsky put his laboratory and -co-workers at my disposal. - -SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Lolling, Chief of Office IIID at -Oranienburg, assigned as co-workers: SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. -Schiedlausky, garrison-physician at Ravensbrueck concentration camp for -women, and Fraeulein Dr. Oberheuser, camp physician at Ravensbrueck -concentration camp for women. - - * * * * * - -The question was to define firstly, by way of a preliminary experiment, -the mode of infection, making use of the known results from experiments -upon animals. In these questions I was advised by SS leaders of the -Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS who had taken over the culture and -dosage of the inoculation material. - -The point was to implant the lymph cultures on the damaged muscle -tissue, to isolate the latter from atmospheric and humoral oxygen -supply, and to subject it to internal tissue pressure. The inoculation -procedure was as follows: a longitudinal cut of 10 centimeters over the -musculus peroneus longus; after incision into the fascia the muscle was -tied up with the forceps in an area the size of a five mark piece; an -anaemic peripheral zone was created by injection of 3 cc. adrenalin and -in the area of the damaged muscle the inoculation material (a gauze -strip saturated with bacterii) was imbedded under the fascia, -subcutaneous adipose tissue, and skin sutured in layers. - -In the first series of experiments (preliminary experiments), three -selected prisoners of as much the same constitution as possible were -used. They were inoculated as follows: - -The first: Aerobic mixculture (staphylococci, streptococci, bact. comm. -try. a 5 Mil). - -The second: Para Oedema Malignum, sarc, flav. 4.5 mg. - -The third: Bact. Fraenkel and earth. Stimulus 4.5 mg. - -The experiment was concluded after 10 days. After an initial local -swelling in the inoculation area and an increase in temperature up to 39 -degrees, the inflammation died down, the wound having broken open on the -fourth day. There was no danger to the life of any of the prisoners. We -succeeded in producing locally the symptoms of gas gangrene in the third -prisoner. After 20 days the prisoners were released again to their -working blocks. - -The course of the preliminary series of experiments had proved that we -were not successful in producing the same symptoms as of clinical gas -gangrene. In a conference with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS -the nature of the infection and the conditions for the germs were not -considered to be equivalent to the natural conditions in war surgery and -consequently the experimental arrangements were varied. - -Bacterium coli were added to the acrobe culture and the germ number was -increased to 20 millions. Bacterium coli and dextrose were added to the -mixture of para oedema malignum. - -Bacterium coli were added to the gas gangrene culture by Fraenkel, and -while doubling the number of germs, earth was administered to produce a -similar environment. Six selected youthful prisoners were inoculated two -by two with the above mixture of bacteria in the subsequent first -experimental series. One of them remained untreated for control -purposes, the other one was powdered with cataxyn wound powder -immediately after the inoculation. The first change of dressing took -place 3 days afterwards, the following each second day. Those who -remained without treatment were covered with sterile layers, those -treated with cataxyn (indicated in the graphs as TK-cases) were -continuously powdered with cataxyn. The aerobe cultures in both cases -showed local abscesses which could be easily treated surgically. - -The para oedema malignum inoculation produced a local inflammation with -central suppuration, small formation of necrosis in the depth and -moderate emphysem of the skin. The regional lymphatic glands were not -affected. - -Those prisoners who were infected with Fraenkel’s gas gangrene, and who -immediately received tetanus-antitoxin for the administered earth, -produced by far the strongest inflammatory reaction: abscesses with deep -necrosis in the area of the inoculation, emphysem of the skin with -formation of blisters, and beginning necrosis collateral oedema -extending from above the joint of the knee to the lower third of the -thigh as far as the back of the foot. The inflammatory appearances -receded considerably after the opening of the injury on the first -dressing day. The effect of the opening of the wound was particularly -significant in the TK-cases which started inflammations in spite of -simultaneous therapy. Greater pressure of the tissue due to oxygen, -liberated by the medicament, was considered to be the reason for the -accentuated local inflammation. - -Comparing nontreated cases with the TK-cases, the final critical -observation shows: - -1. Immediate therapy does not prevent the occurrence either of an -ordinary suppuration or of a “gangrene”. - -2. The cleaning of the wound is faster in TK-cases than in control -cases. - -3. The formation of fresh wound granulations occurs earlier with -cataxyn. - -4. The part played by the paranchymatic organs (liver, kidneys) is less -important under the influence of cataxyn. - -Since in this experiment too definite gangrene could be produced -clinically speaking, yet its picture did not in any way correspond to -the one known in war surgery; after further consultation with the -collaborators in the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, the vaccine was -changed by adding wood shavings. It is known in bacteriological -literature that the virulence of the bacteria in the experimental animal -can thereby be considerably increased. - -The triple distribution was reserved for the second series of -experiments now in progress. Three prisoners in each group were -inoculated. One person was left without treatment as control, the second -was treated with cataxyn as before, and with the third the -Marfanilprontalbin powder manufactured by I. G. Farben was employed, -since this was strongly recommended by the Army Medical Inspectorate. -The powder was applied according to the Schmick procedure. This -experiment is still in progress. - -Even if as yet nothing definite can be said about this series of -experiments it can already be stated that— - -1. there is no decisive difference between cases which are treated and -those which are not treated, - -2. that opening the wound, in addition to immobilization, has proved the -most effective means of controlling the inflammation, - -3. the effect of the MP powder seems at least doubtful, since in the III -TM case the most definite gangrene observed up to now has developed. - -We are now investigating the problem as to why the gangrene in the -present case did not fully develop. Therefore, the injuring of the -tissue and the exclusion of a muscle from the circulation of the blood -were undertaken during a separate operating session, and the large-scale -necrosis resulting therefrom was to be inoculated with bacteria strain -which had already had one human passage. For it is only when the really -definite clinical picture of the gangrene has appeared that conclusions -may be drawn on therapy with chemo-therapeutics in connection with -surgical operations. - - [Signature] GEBHARDT - SS Brigadefuehrer - -Copy certified correct -Berlin, 7 September 1942 -[Signature] POPPENDICK -SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - - * * * * * - - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS - HEINRICH W. STOEHR[75] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. HARDY: Witness, did you ever hear of the sepsis or phlegmon -experiments at the Dachau concentration camp? - -WITNESS STOEHR: Yes, these experiments were conducted at my station. - -Q. How did you gain your knowledge of these phlegmon experiments? Were -you an observer? Were you an assisting nurse, or by what way did you -gain the knowledge you have of these phlegmon experiments? - -A. I was the nurse at that station. One day, I think it was in the late -summer and fall of 1943, a certain Sturmbannfuehrer Schuetz came to me, -with a Standartenfuehrer by the name of Laue or Lauer—I am not quite -sure which—and inspected the surgical department. He was shown a number -of patients. We had to take their bandages off, and he examined their -wounds—or rather, he just looked at them very superficially. After -that, the chief physician of the concentration camp Dachau, Dr. Walda, -was called in, and he received the order to see to it that the patients -received biochemical treatment for some time. - -Q. Witness, will you kindly explain to the Tribunal in what manner these -phlegmon experiments were conducted; that is, the details of the -experiments? What did they do to the victim? - -A. Mainly, phlegmon was treated. It was very general in the camp. That -is to say, phlegmon was the typical camp disease. The biochemical -treatment was carried out in the following manner: - -Three similar cases were observed. One of these cases was given -allopathic treatment; another biochemical, and the third one received -only ordinary surgical treatment. That is, the third one received no -drugs whatsoever, and the wound was treated in an ordinary way with -bandages and so on. These were the directives of the physicians who were -there. We saw on many occasions that the patient was cured much faster -who received no drugs or injections. - -Experiments of that kind were conducted for many weeks, and if I may as -a layman make a judgment, I must say that the physicians, according to -my observations, were not satisfied with these experiments. - -In addition, I have to emphasize that not only wounds were treated -according to these methods, but internal diseases, too. They tried to -find out whether biochemical treatment was suitable for treating the -thirst for water, which was so frequent in the camp. We saw that the -biochemical drugs had no influence whatsoever as to the cause of this -illness. - -I emphasize that I am speaking as a layman and that all these are my -observations. - -During the fall, this Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Schuetz told the camp doctor, -who was named Babo, to infect a number of people with pus. We nurses -were told nothing about that, and we did not know the purpose. These -experiments were conducted on a group of men, and they extended over a -period of approximately six to seven weeks. - -First a group of Germans were infected with pus. We nurses had no idea -of the cause of the illness, and we gave the patients the drugs that -were ordered by the physicians. I emphasize again that half of these -people received allopathic and the other half biochemical treatment. As -nurses, we could observe the following facts: - -The patients who received allopathic treatment were cured much quicker, -that is, if they had any power of resistance to their illness, but the -patients who had to take those pathological tablets, if I remember -correctly, died with the exception of one person. There were -approximately 20 persons who, at that time, were infected. The second -group consisted of 40 clergymen of all nationalities and brothers of -religious fraternities. These patients were selected from the block -where the clergymen were housed. They were selected by the Chief -Physician Dr. Walda and were sent to the operational room of the -concentration camp Dachau. They were operated on by Dr. Schuetz and Dr. -Kieselwetter [Kieselwecker (?)] I think that was his name—and these -experiments were conducted on them. A number of nurses, and also the -personnel of the operating room, and I myself, saw how the injections -were made. We were standing in the anteroom of the operating room. - -Q. Witness, will you explain to the Tribunal what the word “phlegmon” -means? - -A. Phlegmon, as far as a layman can answer that question—means an -inflammation of the tissues, and in the camp of Dachau phlegmons were -very numerous because the people there were mostly sent to the hospital -too late. Typical camp phlegmons, as far as I know, are caused by germs. -Persons got phlegmons who suffered from lack of water. - -Q. Witness, did you say that inmates were used for experiments in which -they were injected with pus? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Did you see these injections of pus being administered? - -A. Yes. - -Q. How were the inmates to be used for these experiments selected? - -A. I didn’t understand your question. - -Q. In what manner did they select the inmates to be used for these -experiments which dealt with the injection of pus? In other words, how -were they selected? What type of prisoners? What were their -nationalities, etc.? - -A. They were 40 persons coming from the so-called clergymen block. - -Q. Were these inmates used for these experiments with injection of pus -healthy inmates? - -A. Completely healthy and strong men. - -Q. You have told us that they had one group, the first group, of ten -Germans. How many died in that group? - -A. I believe that the first group consisted of ten people of whom, as -far as I remember, seven died. - -Q. Now, you have told us of a second group of 40 clergymen. How many -died in that group? - -A. I have seen a list of the survivors, and according to that list, 12 -clergymen, or rather brothers, must have died. - -Q. Were any prisoners of war used in these experiments? - -A. I don’t know whether they were prisoners of war or not. We could not -tell the difference in the camp of Dachau, whether they were prisoners -of war or not; at least I could not. - -Q. Were the victims used in these experiments treated by medical doctors -after they had been injected with pus? - -A. The operation was done by physicians. - -Q. Well, after they had been infected with pus what kind of treatment -was given to them? - -A. After the injection, Sturmbannfuehrer Schuetz gave instructions to -the nurses that one-half of them should receive allopathic and the other -half biological treatment. I emphasize that the group which received -allopathic treatment had special drugs, the so-called sulfanilamide -drugs. We had the impression that the physicians wanted to prove that -the biological drugs were not suitable to cure such a severe disease. - -Q. Then you say, Witness, that 50 percent were treated with -sulfanilamide and the other 50 percent with biological medicants? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, after these injections with pus, did abscesses develop on the -inmate? - -A. The greater part of those who were treated biologically, or rather, -all of them, developed abscesses and very deep abscesses. Some of the -persons who received allopathic and prophylactic treatment with -sulfanilamide had no abscesses. - -Q. Did the inmates who endured this treatment suffer pain? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Severe pain? - -A. As far as I know, the pain was very severe. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT GEBHARDT[76] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. SEIDL: The next document which I intend to submit to the witness is -NO-409 which has been submitted by the prosecution as Exhibit 249. It is -a letter from Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz to the Reich Leader SS -Himmler dated 29 August 1942. It refers to the biochemical treatment of -sepsis. This document came to your knowledge, didn’t it? And this is -shown by a comment you wrote: “Seen at Ravensbrueck on 3 September 1942. -(Signed) KARL GEBHARDT.” Did you know beforehand about the performance -of these experiments and did you agree with them? - -DEFENDANT GEBHARDT: I did not have any previous knowledge of these -experiments, and with regard to this document may I state somewhat more -in detail what it shows? This is a letter to Himmler, dated the end of -August, and signed by Grawitz. It was never mentioned that I was to -receive this letter or that this letter was to be routed through me. It -does not have any note from me to the effect that I countersigned it, or -was in agreement with it, in this form. It was also not discussed in -Berlin or Hohenlychen or in the headquarters, but in Ravensbrueck, and, -in particular, on 3 September when this discussion took place between -Grawitz and me, because of the second group of our sulfanilamide -experiments. Grawitz, who at that time came in order to show us that he -was not in agreement, as far as I can recall, brought this letter and -this description along from Dachau. We then discussed it in detail, -because on my part there were many reasons for raising the sharpest -protest against it. And, may I point out how much can be seen from this -document about how Grawitz planned to publish experiments or to describe -them, in contrast to my procedure at the time. Under point (1) it -states, “SS Hospital, Dachau” and it actually looks in general as though -this were a hospital report. And most of the case histories also speak -in favor of that, too. For example, the reference on page 3 to a joint -plastic, certainly is a big operation which can only be performed in a -hospital. On the following page there is “artificially induced sepsis.” -On the second page, “the cases of sepsis were mainly artificially -induced.” Then on the other side it is stated that in the fatalities -there is no mention of the 8 cases of sepsis that were artificially -induced, but of 10. I proved to Grawitz, especially on this page, that -the description he wanted to make of a camouflaged mixture of -experiments and clinical results might later on be read by somebody -superficially, and he would come to the word “artificially induced” and -would not be able to decide. Then there was a fundamental point with -regard to all persons concerned. This was the impracticability of -performing an experiment in this establishment. Then on page 3 it states -that the drugs were to be taken every five minutes, even at night. At -the time I didn’t even think of giving the report to Grawitz, after I -had found out about it by chance. I wrote “read” in the margin and drew -a logical conclusion with regard to Himmler and Grawitz. In this -connection I not only concluded Grawitz’ influence on our experiments, -but I also asked Himmler how these biochemical experiments were brought -about. I request permission of the Tribunal to permit me here to -describe what Himmler thought with regard to such experiments, and to -show, therefore, how impossible it was in certain cases, in spite of -obtaining knowledge, to effect any change. For a person who has studied -school medicine it is impossible to believe that through the homeopathic -administration of sulphur and phosphorus, surgical case histories, as -well as internal case histories, and metabolistic diseases can be -influenced. However, in medicine one can, of course, take a completely -different point of view, and that is the basic conception of -biochemistry up to homeopathy, to which Himmler completely adhered. And -here in two sentences we have described how all the elements which -appear in nature also have traces in the human body. Now, if one small -trace of an element is lacking, then the human being is susceptible to -and suffering from some disease or other. The therapy and method of -treatment by the biochemist is the exact contrast of medicine as -practiced by a person who has studied it at school. They make test -experiments on human beings and discover what element is lacking in that -human being, and no matter from what disease he is suffering, the -patient is treated with minimum doses of the element which he lacks. -Never in the world has it been possible for a typical school -practitioner and a biochemist to agree, because they want to treat the -human being completely in contrast to each other. From this example you -can see now that when I went to Himmler and said that it was madness for -not only an experiment to be performed on out-patients, but that also -simultaneously ten or twelve different cases should be treated with the -same medicine, when I told Himmler this, he said that he had one of the -most experienced biochemists, and a layman, Herr Laue with him, and that -he was absolutely convinced that this method of treatment was correct. -Himmler always attempted to discover old-fashioned popular remedies. In -spite of my objection and in spite of my proof that my own surgical -patients would suffer from it, these experiments were performed until I -succeeded in bringing this Dr. Laue and Dr. Kieselwecker from Marburg -(who enjoyed Himmler’s complete confidence on this question) to -Hohenlychen. There we performed a similar experiment together on my -patients in order to show that this method of treatment was impossible. -But even in this way I was not able to achieve my purpose with Himmler, -because afterwards it was said we had not applied the drugs properly, -and so on. Therefore, one can conclude from this that it was not the -case that Himmler adhered to one certain medical concept, and if one -accidentally heard of an experiment, one could convince him. Himmler -maintained a hostile attitude toward school medicine, and from nature -cures to biochemistry he was accessible to every thought, and when Laue -convinced him of the fact that this drug was of decisive importance, -then the experiment was performed. May I state in this connection, that -the knowledge of this document had the following three results with me: -that Grawitz, who was ready to make compromises as is shown here, did -not allow anyone to tell him anything at all about the sulfanilamide -question; that I gave Himmler clear knowledge of the false idea without -being able to convince him because of his favorable attitude toward -biochemistry; and that the experiment would perhaps be discontinued, -mainly on account of subsequent examinations at Hohenlychen. I shall -give evidence of this as soon as I receive the appropriate testimony of -witnesses. - - * * * * * - ------ - -[74] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947, -pp. 10874-10910. - -[75] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 -December 1946, pp. 574-594. - -[76] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 4, 5, 6, -7, 10 March 1947, pp. 3981-4256. - - 13. POLYGAL EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The prosecution introduced evidence calculated to show that inhumane -acts and atrocities, as generally alleged in paragraph 6 of the -indictment, were committed in the course of polygal experiments. These -experiments were not specifically described in the subparagraphs of -paragraph 6 of the indictment which particularized 12 specific types of -experimentation. On this charge the defendants Handloser, Blome, and -Poppendick were acquitted and only the defendant Sievers was convicted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the polygal experiments -is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Blome. An -extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 670 to 672. A -corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these -experiments has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant -Blome. It appears below on pages 672 to 675. This argumentation is -followed by selections from the evidence on pages 675 to 683. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST - DEFENDANT BLOME_ - - * * * * * - -In order to test the effectiveness of a blood coagulant “polygal,” -Rascher carried out experiments in which inmates of the Dachau -concentration camp were shot. Rascher’s uncle, in his affidavit, -describes the murderous experiments which were carried out by his -nephew. In August 1943, he visited Rascher in Dachau and, while Rascher -was away from his office, he saw a report which he describes as follows: - - “It refers to a report about the shooting (execution) of four - people for the purpose of experimenting with the hemostatic - preparation ‘Polygal 10.’ As far as I remember they were a - Russian Commissar and a cretin, I do not remember who the other - two were. The Russian was shot in the right shoulder from above - by an SS man who stood on a chair. The bullet emerged near the - spleen. It was described how the Russian twitched convulsively, - then sat down on a chair and died after about 20 minutes. In the - dissection protocol the rupture of the pulmonary vessels and the - aorta was described. It was further described that the ruptures - were tamponed by hard blood clots. That could have been the only - explanation for the comparatively long span of life after the - shot.” (_NO-1424, Pros. Ex. 462._) - -This evidence is corroborated by the testimony of the witness Stoehr -(_Tr. p. 587_) and the affidavit of Pohl (_NO-065, Pros. Ex. 221_). Even -the defendant Gebhardt admitted, during his testimony, that he knew that -Rascher had carried out blood coagulation experiments on concentration -camp inmates who had been shot for the purpose. (_Tr. pp. 4240-1._) - -The evidence proves that Blome collaborated with Rascher in the polygal -research. This collaboration began at least as early as the middle of -1943 in connection with cancer research. (_NO-473, Pros. Ex. 237_; _see -also NO-538, Pros. Ex. 122, entries for 18 February, 7 April, 14 April, -and 26 June 1943_.) The defendant Sievers stated in his affidavit that: -“Blome also had full knowledge of the blood coagulation experiments at -Dachau. He received reports from Rascher and should have a complete -knowledge of these matters.” (_NO-473, Pros. Ex. 237._) Blome admitted -that Rascher had been commissioned by Himmler to work with him in the -field of blood coagulation. (_Tr. p. 4642._) One of the collaborators of -Rascher in the polygal research was an inmate of the Dachau -concentration camp by the name of Robert Feix. By letter of 15 September -1943, Rascher requested Sievers to approach Blome, so that the latter -might arrange for the release of Feix and for his reinstatement in his -former category as half-Aryan. Rascher stated in his letter that “Blome -has given me great hopes in this respect.” (_NO-611, Pros. Ex. 239._) -This proves that Blome was already collaborating with Rascher on polygal -research in the summer of 1943. Obviously, Blome would not have put -himself out to assist in this work without knowing precisely what had -been done to test polygal. - -In the latter part of 1943, Rascher and Dr. Haferkamp wrote a paper on -polygal. This paper draws a clear distinction between _experiments_ on -human beings to test the effect of polygal and _clinical tests_. It -states that: “Before we tried the clinical use of the drug and had it -probed, it was tested on _human beings_ by thorough experiments as to -its influence on the period of clotting and bleeding.” Curves were -included to show the reaction of polygal on clotting and bleeding. Later -on, the paper discusses clinical observations during operations. -(_NO-438, Pros. Ex. 240._) The experiments mentioned in this paper -obviously are the ones during which inmates were shot. They were not so -described in the paper because it was written for publication. Blome -testified that the only experiments he knew about were ones where one -cubic centimeter of blood was withdrawn to see how fast it would -coagulate in a test tube. (_Tr. p. 4643._) Such tests cannot be -described as experiments. It is impossible to conceive of Rascher’s -testing a blood coagulant to be used on soldiers wounded on the -battlefield in such a manner. And this was better known to Blome at the -time than it is now to the Tribunal. He knew that Rascher had conducted -the freezing experiments with resultant loss of life. He had been -informed about the Buchenwald typhus experiments. (_Tr. p. 4640._) -Moreover, this devious explanation of Blome does not cover experiments -to test the effect of polygal on bleeding; to test blood in a test tube -covers only coagulation reaction, not bleeding reaction. So he had to -add to the implausible by saying that Rascher once told him that he or -another doctor had rubbed the upper thigh of a person under anesthetic -until it became bloody and then tested the efficacy of polygal. But -Blome said, “I didn’t take this statement of his seriously.” (_Tr. p. -4635._) The thing which cannot be taken seriously is Blome’s display of -ignorance about experiments in which the documents prove he had a direct -personal interest. - -Blome approved the publication of the paper mentioned above in the -Munich Medical Weekly [Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift]. (_Tr. p. -4639; NO-616, Pros. Ex. 244._) Both Grawitz and Pohl raised objections -to the publication of the article because they had not been consulted -and because Dachau 3 K and human experimental subjects were mentioned. -(_NO-614, Pros. Ex. 245_; _NO-615, Pros. Ex. 246_.) Both these men knew -of the murderous experiments carried out by Rascher to test polygal. -Gebhardt knew. Yet Blome asks the Tribunal to assume that he was too -naive to have known; that he didn’t even believe Rascher when he was -told that he had deliberately rubbed the hide off of an inmate’s leg to -test polygal. - -On 23 February 1944 Rascher received a research assignment on polygal -from the Reich Research Council. (_NO-656, Pros. Ex. 247._) _Blome -admitted that he issued this assignment._ (_Tr. p. 4634._) Siever’s -diary reveals that on 1 February 1944, polygal production by Rascher was -listed as a war economy industry by the Reich Research Council. On 22 -February Sievers had a conference with Rascher in which supply questions -for the production of this drug, _experiments of Blome_, and the polygal -report for the defendant Gebhardt were discussed. On 24 February Sievers -had a telephone conversation with Blome in which Blome informed him that -Himmler had issued an order concerning Blome’s work in Dachau in -collaboration with Rascher, (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._) Blome admitted -that Himmler requested him to cooperate with Rascher on polygal -research. (_Tr. p. 4510._) When Ploetner took over Rascher’s work on 31 -March (_Tr. p. 973_), Blome continued his interest in polygal as shown -by a telephone conversation with Sievers on this matter on 24 July. -(_Tr. p. 976._) - - * * * * * - - c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT - BLOME_ - - * * * * * - -The question of _polygal_ was from the beginning one of the weakest -counts of the indictment against Dr. Blome. It is a remedy to make the -blood clot and to prevent people from bleeding to death as a result of -wounds inflicted in battle or by operation, or from injury due to -excessive loss of blood. This equally innocuous and beneficial remedy -was apparently made the object of a charge only because Dr. Rascher once -maintained that he had killed four concentration camp inmates with -pistol shots in order to try out polygal on them. (_NO-1424, Pros. Ex. -462_; _NO-065, Pros. Ex. 221_.) But I believe that every intelligent -person must have approached this contention of Rascher’s with the -strongest distrust, because one cannot try out a styptic on a dead -person, and Dr. Blome, like other physicians, has repeatedly assured me -that they did not understand what Dr. Rascher had in mind with such -actions, which of course had nothing to do with “experiments”. But even -on the assumption that these stories of Dr. Rascher were true—that he -had actually killed some concentration camp prisoners in order to -“experiment” on them with “polygal”—by what right can Dr. Blome be held -responsible for this, a man who knew nothing at all about these crimes -of Dr. Rascher? Dr. Blome has been waiting in vain for evidence to be -submitted by the prosecution to prove that he (Dr. Blome) had had -anything to do with those actions of Dr. Rascher, that he had at least -approved or at any rate had some knowledge of them. The document -presented by the prosecution proves that Dr. Blome can certainly not be -held responsible for the alleged shooting of four concentration camp -inmates by Dr. Rascher. (_NO-1424 Pros. Ex. 462._) This murder committed -by Dr. Rascher, if it was committed at all, happened before August 1943, -according to Document NO-1424. It was during this month that the witness -Friedrich Karl Rascher found in the writing table of his nephew, Dr. -Rascher, the report on the shooting of the four concentration camp -inmates. Dr. Blome, however, heard about polygal for the first time only -during his second visit to Himmler in August or September 1943; before -that time the matter was unknown to him. This statement by Dr. Blome -concerning the date is in agreement with the testimony of Sievers of 10 -April 1947, according to which the joint visit of Dr. Blome, Sievers, -and Rascher to Himmler took place in the autumn of 1943. From this it is -evident that the murder of the four concentration camp inmates by Dr. -Rascher, if it has really any connection with polygal, happened without -doubt at a time when Dr. Blome still had no knowledge of this styptic. -Dr. Blome has rightly pointed out that it would have been a completely -incomprehensible insanity to kill people only for the purpose of testing -a styptic at a time when every day offered an abundance of material for -the observation and study of the effect of polygal in the thousands of -wounded soldiers and of patients operated on at the front as well as -among the civilian population. - -In this connection it is, incidentally, quite interesting to learn from -the interrogation of the witness Neff that he never saw or observed any -such “experiments” by Dr. Rascher. Neither did Dr. Rascher tell Neff -anything about them, although Neff held a particularly confidential -position with Rascher and otherwise learned much about Rascher and his -“experiments”. Even in the camp nothing was said at the time about these -alleged “experiments” of Dr. Rascher with polygal, although it could -certainly not have been and also did not have to be kept secret in the -camp if Rascher had actually shot four concentration camp inmates in -order to carry out “experiments” on them with polygal. - -These facts justify serious doubts as to whether those “experiments” -ever took place at all and especially whether they have anything to do -with the hemostatic polygal. - -In reality, polygal is an absolutely harmless drug, whether it is -injected or taken in tablet form, and the use of such a drug in this -form can in no case be considered a criminal experiment against humanity -as specified by the indictment before this Tribunal. Even when -administered by injection with the subsequent drawing of a few drops of -blood from the experimental subject, it is completely harmless. It does -not cause any more “pain” than any other injection, and the whole test -of this drug consists solely of taking one cc. of blood from the vein of -the so-called experimental subject. Thus we are not dealing with any -experiment of the kind that could be considered criminal because it -causes severe pains or because it is dangerous or for any other reasons. - -Besides, the concept of “criminal experiments on human beings” has -already been explained at the trial of Field Marshal Milch[77] by the -verdict of 16 April 1947; this verdict expressly limits the range of -such experiments to experiments “which could cause torture or death to -the experimental subjects.” Thus one cannot, in the present proceedings, -object to those experiments which cannot ordinarily be assumed to cause -death to the experimental subject or be accompanied by severe pain. -Neither took place when polygal was administered. For either it serves -as a hemostatic which can only be of advantage to the patient or, in the -reverse case, it simply has no effect. Polygal can never have any -harmful consequences, least of all cause any damage to health; nor could -this be claimed by the prosecution, for polygal is generally used in -surgery nowadays. - -And finally, all the persons who submitted to polygal tests were -volunteers. Dr. Blome, however, could not prove this here by -interrogating the inventor of the drug, Feix, because the prosecution -prevented defense counsel from examining Feix by transferring the latter -to Dachau, whence he later escaped. The transcript of the interrogation -of Feix by the prosecution was not submitted here, even though Feix had -told me personally that he could not understand how any blame in -connection with polygal could be put on Dr. Blome. But another witness, -namely Walter Neff, testified here on the witness stand that the -experimental subjects on whom the experiments had been carried out had -volunteered, just as he himself had done. Since Neff was produced as -witness by the prosecution,[78] the latter will hardly want to declare -the testimony, sworn to by Neff, to be untrue. - -The verdict of 16 April 1947 against Field Marshal Milch quoted above, -states explicitly that medical experiments are punishable only when -carried out without the consent of the subjects. Furthermore, -punishability presumes that the experiments were a “torture” for the -experimental subject or jeopardized his life. Both conditions obviously -do not apply to polygal. Thus one comes to the conclusion that it would -have been better not to mention within the limits of this trial subjects -where even the closest observer has to look very carefully to see -whether he could not possibly find anything to object to. - -This applies especially to the report of the Institute for Military -Scientific Research (Department Rascher), on coagulation of blood. -(_NO-438, Pros. Ex. 240._) In this report, the author, Dr. Rascher, -emphasizes the importance of “Polygal 10” for combat troops and in -operations and describes five operations where polygal was used with -good results. There can be no doubt that those were five bona fide -operations which were performed on patients in an entirely legitimate -way and which tested polygal’s effectiveness in stopping bleedings in an -absolutely proper manner, as it is usually done, with similar drugs. It -is inconceivable how a conclusion of illegal “experiments” could have -been drawn from that report. - -One of these five legitimate operations, by the way, is described in a -report by the camp physician Dr. Kahr, dated 12 October 1943 [10 -December 1943] (_NO-656, Pros. Ex. 247_); it does not offer any basis -for assuming an “experiment”. In this connection it is worthwhile to -note that Dr. Blome himself, in his affidavit of 25 October 1946 -(_NO-471, Pros. Ex. 238_), under section 8 describes the use of polygal -in cases of “battle wounds and operations”, but deals with “experiments -on human beings” only in the next section, 9. Therefore, Dr. Blome knew -from the beginning that polygal had nothing to do with “experiments on -human beings”. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - Pros. Ex. -Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page -NO-1424 462 Affidavit of Fritz Friedrich Karl Rascher, M. 676 - D., 31 December 1946, concerning the life - and activities of Dr. Sigmund Rascher. -NO-438 240 Report from the Institute for Military 676 - Scientific Research, (Department Dr. - Rascher) on “Polygal 10.” -NO-656 247 Memorandum by SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Wolff, 680 - 8 May 1944; letters from Dr. Kahr to - Rascher, 10 and 16 December 1943. - - _Testimony_ - Page -Extracts from the testimony of defendant Sievers 682 - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1424 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 462 - - AFFIDAVIT OF FRITZ FRIEDRICH KARL RASCHER, M. D., 31 DECEMBER 1946, - CONCERNING THE LIFE AND ACTIVITIES OF DR. SIGMUND RASCHER - - AFFIDAVIT - -I, Fritz Friedrich Karl Rascher, being duly sworn, depose and state: - -1. I was born on 13 August 1888 at Kellmuenz/Schwaben-Neuburg. I am a -German citizen. My present civilian address is: Hamburg, Parkallee 78. I -attended the following schools: 4 years public school at Augsburg, 4 -years St. Anna Gymnasium at Augsburg, 2 years Real-Gymnasium at -Augsburg, and 4 years of senior high school at Ravensburg. I graduated -from junior college at Ravensburg in 1909. I studied medicine for 5 -years at Munich. I passed my state board examination in 1914 at Munich. -From 1914 to 1917 I worked as general practitioner. In the autumn of -1917 I was drafted into the armed forces, remained however at first in -Hamburg in the home guard reserve and worked at the same time as general -practitioner until May 1918. From May 1918 until November 1918 I was a -medical officer. Since the end of 1918 until now I have been a general -practitioner in Hamburg. - -2. I am the uncle of Dr. Sigmund Rascher and have always maintained a -pleasant family relationship with my nephew. I also was well acquainted -with the wife of Dr. Sigmund Rascher, Nini Rascher nee Diehl. I also -maintained contact with Dr. Sigmund Rascher and his wife during the war -until the arrest at the end of 1943 or beginning of 1944. For the -reasons stated above, I am in the position to make the following -statement: - -3. While attending the wedding of my nephew in Munich he told me that he -had been asked to take over a laboratory in the concentration camp -Dachau by order of the Luftwaffe and in connection with the Ahnenerbe. -This offer was made to him through the medium of his wife and Himmler. -He told me that this would be a big chance to work free and undisturbed. -At the same time he saw in it a chance of continuing his experiments on -blood crystallization. In these experiments he was supported by a -relative of his wife by the name of Fraeulein Lulu, who later committed -suicide. At that time I advised my nephew against accepting such a job. - -4. In August 1942 I heard from my nephew in Munich that he had taken -over the laboratory at Dachau and that he would work there extensively. -Knowing the great diligence and the ambition of my nephew I was not -surprised that he accepted this job. - -At that time I drove with my nephew by car up to the entrance of the -concentration camp, but did not enter. The only thing I heard from my -nephew at that time was that he had carried out high-altitude tests on -himself. - -5. In August 1943 I was with my nephew twice in the Dachau concentration -camp. The first time I went only to his private quarters and did not see -the laboratory. The second time he showed me his laboratory and -introduced me to his colleagues. I still remember the following names: -Dr. Punzengruber and Dr. Feix. I inspected the chemical exploitation of -blood coagulation. At that time he also told me of freezing experiments. -He said that he had carried these out on himself at first and then he -introduced to me one of his colleagues who had volunteered three times -for these experiments. If I remember rightly, Himmler is supposed to -have been present at one of these experiments and to have pardoned the -man who was condemned to death. During the absence of my nephew, I -accidentally found the following document in his desk: - -It refers to a report about the shooting (execution) of four people for -the purpose of experimenting with the hemostatic preparation “Polygal -10”. As far as I remember they were a Russian Commissar and a cretin, I -do not remember who the other two were. The Russian was shot in the -right shoulder from above by an SS man who stood on a chair. The bullet -emerged near the spleen. It was described how the Russian twitched -convulsively, then sat down on a chair and died after about 20 minutes. -In the dissection protocol the rupture of the pulmonary vessels and the -aorta was described. It was further described that the ruptures were -tamponed by hard blood clots. That could have been the only explanation -for the comparatively long span of life after the shot. After reading -this first protocol I was so shocked that I did not read the others. At -the time I took a sample of the hemostatic preparation from the desk -which I submit herewith to the files. - -6. On the way to Munich after this visit to Dachau, which was my last, I -called my nephew to account. He raved when he learned that I knew of -this matter. After appealing to his conscience, from the scientific as -well as from the humane point of view, he broke down and cried: “I dare -not think, I dare not think.” In Munich my nephew and I continued this -conversation during the whole night. Dr. Sigmund Rascher admitted at the -time that he was on the wrong path but that he didn’t see any -possibility of resigning from it. - -7. At the end of 1943 or beginning of 1944 I received a letter from my -nephew, in which he informed me that he and his wife had been arrested -because of illegal adoption (and registration) of a child. This letter -was accompanied by a note by Kriminalrat Schmidt from Munich in which he -informed me that I should contact him if I knew anything about this -matter. I wrote at the time to Munich that I considered this to be -impossible because I myself had once seen Frau Rascher in a pregnant -state. I am a doctor and examined her myself. That was before the birth -of the second child; she was then in the 6th or 7th month of pregnancy. -I wish to add that the first son looked very much like his father and -also had similar habits. - -8. Since this occurrence in 1943 or 1944 I have not heard from either -Dr. Sigmund Rascher or his wife. Only in 1946 I learned from various -people that my nephew had been shot in Dachau before the arrival of the -Americans and that his wife had been hanged at Ravensbrueck or Berlin on -orders of Himmler. I also submit to the files three pictures taken -during the youth of Dr. Sigmund Rascher. All my nephew’s documents which -I had in my possession I burned in 1944 because I was afraid of the -Gestapo. - -I have read the above affidavit in the German language consisting of 2 -pages and declare that it is true and correct to the best of my -knowledge and belief. I was given the opportunity of making alterations -and corrections in the above affidavit. This affidavit was made by me -voluntarily, without any promise or reward and I was subjected to no -compulsion or duress of any kind. - - [Signature] RASCHER - -Hamburg, 31 December 1946. - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-438 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 240 - -REPORT FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR MILITARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, (DEPARTMENT - DR. RASCHER) ON “POLYGAL 10” - - [Handwritten] - Mue. med. Wo. Schri. - delivered 20 Dec. 1943. - - From the Institute for Military Scientific Research (Department Dr. - Rascher) “Polygal 10”, a hemostat to be administered orally - by - Dr. med. S. Rascher, Munich, and Dr. med. H. Haferkamp, - Waltershausen (Thuringia). - -A good hemostat has to have the following qualifications: - -1. It must be harmless. - -2. It must be administered easily (orally). - -3. It must not have an unpleasant taste. - -4. It must have a deep and long-lasting effect on bleeding and clotting -time. - -5. After the effect wears off it must be possible to administer another -dose without any danger. - -Hemostats now on sale commercially meet these demands only partially. No -unobjectionable hemostat is known so far which is in tablet form, -durable, unimpaired by cold temperatures and therefore easily -transportable. But it would be worthwhile to produce such a preparation -whose application would have the following important advantages: - -1. It could be given prophylactically to the combat troops before an -attack and to air crews before action. Too great a loss of blood could -be avoided that way when tending to wounds is delayed; similarly it -would prevent the wounded from becoming incapacitated by delaying the -loss of blood. - -2. Before operations in which greater areal bleeding is to be expected, -it could be used to keep the operational region clear of interfering -bleeding. - -3. Persons having a long blood clotting time could benefit inestimably -from such a remedy in cases of teeth extractions, etc. - -4. In severe cases of lung or stomach hemorrhage which cannot be treated -surgically at once, such a remedy could be life saving. - -We believe we have such a remedy in “Polygal 10,” a preparation composed -and tested in our institute, which does fulfill the above requirements. -“Polygal 10” is a drug composed on a “pectin” base; its new method, -differentiating it from other hemostats on a pectin base is to be found -in the activation of pectin before composing it into the hemostat. - -Before we tried the clinical use of the drug and had it probed, it was -tested on _human beings_ by thorough experiments as to its influence on -the period of clotting and bleeding. The period of clotting was -occasionally established in short intervals by 10 parallel definitions -of free flowing venous blood according to the method of _Buercker_. The -period of bleeding was measured by a stop watch after a wound at the ear -had been inflicted by a “Frankeschen Schnepper.” - -On the enclosed graphic chart (not reproduced) the curves of two -experimental subjects are displayed (experimental subjects Nos. 200 and -207). The depth of decline and the duration of effect correspond to the -average. It is to be mentioned with reference to the curves that -_various persons_ were always used for the _experiments_ in order to -avoid a possible accumulation of effect by the drug. - - * * * * * - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-656 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 247 - - MEMORANDUM BY SS OBERSTURMBANNFUEHRER WOLFF, 8 MAY 1944; LETTERS FROM - DR. KAHR TO RASCHER, 10 AND 16 DECEMBER 1943 - - [Handwritten] The Preparation of Polygal - - Waischenfeld/Oberfranken 8 May 1944 - No. 135 Telephone No. 2 - Journal No. Wo/He. - -The Reich Leader SS -Personal Staff -Office Ahnenerbe - - SUMMARY - -SS Hauptsturmfuehrer S. Rascher MD. was assigned the following research -tasks by the Reich Research Council: - - * * * * * - -2. On 23 February 1944 Journal No. Rf 3717/44g Code word: “Polygal.” -Research task for the development of production methods for the -preparation of the hemostat polygal. Priority SS/44 Wehrmacht order -number: SS 4118-0391/44 Rf 2829. - -Point 11 as an addition to the task. - -Procurement of supplies, etc., has a priority rating SS 4950 (Group I). - - [Signature] WOLFF - SS Obersturmfuehrer - - * * * * * - - _Copy_ - -Concentration Camp Dachau -The Camp Physician - - Dachau, 10 December 1943 - -Subject: Administering “polygal” after amputation of the thigh of - a 40-year-old male patient. -To: Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher -Dachau - -On 10 December 1943 the effectiveness of “polygal” in the case of the -amputation of the thigh was tested. The drug was administered per os 45 -minutes before the operation and was placed in the patient’s mouth to be -dissolved. A blood transfusion of 500 cc. had been made the previous day -in preparation for the operation. Blood pressure on the day of the -operation was 180/80. - -As regards the effectiveness of “polygal” one can say that it was -absolutely evident how little the tissues bled. After the first rush of -blood from the vessels which had been cut, when completely emptied of -blood no more bleeding occurred after this first flow of accumulated -blood, so that it was not necessary to apply any ligatures to the -surface of the muscles and the fatty tissues, or the subcutaneous -tissues, as had always been the case with other amputations. The -effectiveness of “polygal” must in this case be described as complete. - - By order: - [Signed] DR. KAHR - SS Obersturmfuehrer - The First Camp Physician, Concentration Camp Dachau - - * * * * * - - _Copy_ - -Concentration Camp Dachau -The Camp Physician - Dachau 16 December 1943 -To: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher -Dachau - -“Polygal 10” was used for 2 herniotomies. The patients were men of 35 -and 42 years of age, respectively. In both cases the tablets were -administered to the patients 40 minutes before the operation. Blood -pressure before the operation was 135/80 in the case of the 35-year-old -patient and 145/80 in the case of the 42-year-old patient. Both patients -tolerated “polygal 10” without complaint, nor were there any unpleasant -accompanying symptoms in the stomach. - -It is to be said of the operation itself that the loss of blood was -conspicuously slight in both cases. As in the case of all preceding -operations where “polygal 10” had been administered, it was only -necessary in this case, to cut off the bleeding from the vessels. In the -first case, that of the 35-year-old patient, stronger bleeding from the -subcutaneous tissues occurred after the skin had been cut, which, -however, was stopped by mere wiping, so that in this case the -application of clips to the subcutaneous tissues was unnecessary. Only -after cutting the cremaster was it necessary to apply some ligatures, -because then some smaller vessels were pierced. During the further -course of the operation, i. e., the separation of the hernial sac from -the funiculus spermaticus (it was an indirect inguinal hernia), several -spots bled in the beginning, but bleeding came to a standstill at once -and the use of ligatures was superfluous. - -The same observations were made in the second case, the case of the -42-year-old patient. Hemostasis by application of ligatures was -necessary in only a few spots, and this was always in those places where -vessels had been injured during the operation. The favorable effect of -“polygal 10” in surgical operations consists not only in its causing -slight bleeding and preventing great loss of blood, but also in that it -makes possible considerably faster operations, because the applications -of clips and later ligatures always takes up a certain time, which can -be saved by the use of “polygal 10.” - - [Signed] DR. KAHR - SS Obersturmfuehrer - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT SIEVERS[79] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. WEISGERBER: The prosecution has submitted a single Document, -NO-1424, Prosecution Exhibit 462. This is an affidavit of Dr. Fritz -Friedrich Karl Rascher, who is an uncle of Dr. Rascher. It becomes -evident from this document that Rascher was carrying out fatal -experiments on human beings in connection with the development of -polygal. Did you know about that at any time? - -DEFENDANT SIEVERS: No, I heard nothing about it. After Rascher’s arrest, -however, in 1944, the Police President of Munich, von Eberstein, gave me -a rather excited description of this criminal Rascher. He said that -Rascher had even shot at a human being in order to test his coagulating -drug. A confirmation of this statement could not be obtained at that -time. I didn’t believe it at first because so many rumors were flying -around about him and his wife after his arrest—one of them was that he -removed his collaborator Muschler by murdering her. Rascher, -incidentally, succeeded in clearing himself of this suspicion of murder. -After everything has become known through this trial—everything that -Rascher has on his conscience—I am rather inclined to believe it. Uncle -Rascher’s statements also reveal how secret Rascher kept his misdeeds. -Only by interfering with his nephew’s desk did Uncle Rascher gain -knowledge of whatever he is testifying here. At the same time, he -confirms in his statement that his nephew was furious when he found out -about his interference. - -Q. Concluding these questions, I put to you Pohl’s affidavit which is -Document NO-065, Prosecution Exhibit 221. I quote (this is on top of -page 3): “Sievers told me the following: Ahnenerbe, of which Sievers was -manager, was developing a drug in Dachau, by order of Himmler, which had -as its result the quick coagulation of blood. He said that it was very -important for fighting units because it prevented their bleeding to -death. The experiments in Dachau, during which one inmate was shot at, -have proved these results.” Did you tell Pohl anything to that effect? - - * * * * * - -A. I told Pohl exactly what I had found out from Eberstein. As I already -said, the development stage of polygal was already concluded when he -received Himmler’s order to take care of the production. If Rascher shot -at an inmate in connection with polygal research then this, at any rate, -occurred at a time when he had nothing to do with that matter. I only -heard of this alleged shooting after Rascher’s arrest, as I have already -testified. - -Q. Mr. President, in this connection I offer Document Sievers 10 as -Sievers Exhibit 8. I beg your pardon, Sievers Exhibit 9. This is an -affidavit of Oswald Pohl. The essential points to be found on page one -of this document are, and I quote: - - “1. My affidavit of 23 July 1946 concerning medical experiments - was submitted to me with reference to my statements in paragraph - 4, Sievers (Ahnenerbe). - - “2. Sievers’ diary of 1944 (_3546-PS_) was submitted to me with - reference to the entry of 15 June 1944, 9 o’clock (page 167): - - “SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. - - “1. Production of polygal and settlement Felix.” - -Paragraphs two to six are not interesting here and I shall skip them. I -quote again: - - “After having read this entry in the diary, I can remember - Sievers’ visit very well and I can state according to the best - of my knowledge and conscience: - - “When all the relevant points concerning the possibility of - producing (installation for manufacture) the blood-stanching - remedy ‘polygal’, as well as the other items had been discussed, - Sievers told me a few things about the Rascher case before I - called in SS Standartenfuehrer Maurer to discuss the employment - of scientist prisoners in mathematical calculating problems. He - informed me that Rascher and his wife had been arrested for - jointly committing child substitution and abduction. Through - Rascher’s arrest, several unbelievable things had apparently - come to light which were now being investigated. It was also - maintained that Rascher was supposed to have fired at a prisoner - in order to test the ‘polygal’. Sievers therefore expresses an - assumption which he himself had only heard, and not a fact based - on his own knowledge.” - -And then follows the certification. - - * * * * * - ------ - -[77] United States _vs._ Erhard Milch. See Vol. II. - -[78] Neff was called as witness by the Tribunal. - -[79] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 9, 10, -11, 14 Apr 1947, pp. 5656-5869. - - 14. GAS OEDEMA (PHENOL) EXPERIMENTS - - a. Introduction - -The prosecution introduced evidence calculated to show that inhuman acts -and atrocities (as generally alleged in paragraph 6 of the indictment) -were committed in the course of gas oedema experiments. These -experiments were not specifically described in the subparagraphs of -paragraph 6 of the indictment, which particularized 12 specific types of -experimentation. On this charge the defendants Mrugowsky and Hoven were -convicted and the defendant Handloser was acquitted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the gas oedema -experiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendant -Mrugowsky. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 684 to -685. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on -pages 685 to 694. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT - MRUGOWSKY_ - - * * * * * - - _Gas Oedema Serum Experiments_ - -The affidavit of Dr. Erwin Schuler, alias Ding, states that at a -conference in the Military Medical Academy in Berlin, at the end of -1942, in which he took part, one of the topics of discussion was the -fatality of gas oedema serum on wounded soldiers. The affidavit goes on -to state that among the participants in the discussion were Killian, -General Schreiber, Mrugowsky, and a medical officer who was unknown to -him. Killian and Mrugowsky gave reports on soldiers who had received the -serum in high quantities and hours later, after apparently having -recovered, died suddenly without visible reason. It was suspected that -the phenol content of the serum brought about the fatal result. In the -presence of Killian and Schreiber, Mrugowsky ordered Ding to take part -in the performance of euthanasia with phenol on a concentration camp -inmate and to describe the results in detail. Ding later witnessed the -execution of four or five persons with phenol injections by the -defendant Hoven in the Buchenwald concentration camp. According to -orders, Ding reported his findings to Berlin. (_NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283._) - -Mrugowsky denied having given any such order to Ding. It is quite -apparent, however, that Ding-Schuler, who was under arrest at the time -he executed this affidavit, would not have implicated himself in a crime -which did not occur. Mrugowsky’s continued interest in the effect of the -phenol contained in serum is evidenced by a letter of 24 August 1944 -from Grawitz to him. Grawitz stated that the Reich Leader SS had -approved experiments proposed by Mrugowsky on the tolerance of serum -containing phenol. (_NO-1198, Pros. Ex. 466._) - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - Pros. Ex. -Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page -NO-429 281 Extracts from the affidavit of Waldemar Hoven, 685 - 24 October 1946, concerning the killing of - inmates by phenol and other means. -NO-257 283 Extract from a sworn statement by Dr. Erwin 686 - Schuler (Ding), 20 July 1945, concerning - euthanasia with phenol injection. - - _Testimony_ - -Extracts from testimony of the defendant Mrugowsky 688 - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-429 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 281 - - EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF WALDEMAR HOVEN, 24 OCTOBER 1946, - CONCERNING THE KILLING OF INMATES BY PHENOL AND OTHER MEANS - -I, Waldemar Hoven, being duly sworn, depose and state: - -1. I was born in Freiburg, Breisgau, on the 10th of February 1903. I -attended high school but did not complete my education until many years -later. Between the years 1919 and 1933 I visited Denmark, Sweden, United -States, and France. In 1933 I returned to Freiburg and completed my high -school course and then attended the Universities of Freiburg and Munich. -In 1939 I concluded my medical studies and joined the Waffen SS as a -physician. The last rank I held in the Waffen SS was Hauptsturmfuehrer -(captain). In 1934 I had joined the Allgemeine SS. - -2. In October 1939 I was assigned as an assistant medical officer in the -SS hospital in the Buchenwald concentration camp and held that position -until 1941 when I was appointed the medical officer in charge of the SS -troops stationed in the camp. At the end of 1941 I was transferred to -the camp hospital and became the assistant medical officer therein. This -hospital was for the inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp. In -July 1942 I was elevated to the position of chief physician and thereby -had the full responsibility for the inmate patients in the hospital. I -held this position until September 1943 when I was arrested by the SS -police court of Kassel and remained under arrest until 15th of March -1945. - -3. Due to my various positions in the Buchenwald concentration camp -during this period of nearly four years I became acquainted with all -phases of the medical activities therein and am hereby able to make the -following statement: - - * * * * * - -10. In the camp we had a great many prisoners who were jealous of the -positions held by a certain few of the inmates, that is, some of the -political prisoners held key positions and were able to get better -living conditions than the average. Hence, many of the prisoners envied -these positions and made every effort to discredit the men who held the -key positions. Such traitorous actions became known through the -“grapevine” to the men in the key positions and then such traitors were -immediately killed. In each case I was later notified in order to make -out the death statements of the prisoners killed. These statements did -not indicate the actual cause of death but were made out to indicate -that the prisoner died of natural causes. - -11. In some instances I supervised the killing of these unworthy inmates -by injections of phenol at the request of the inmates. These killings -took place in the camp hospital and I was assisted by several inmates. -On one occasion Dr. Ding came to the hospital to witness such killings -with phenol and said that I was not doing it correctly, therefore he -performed some of the injections himself. At that time three inmates -were killed with phenol injections and they died within a minute. - -12. The total number of traitors killed was about 150, of whom 60 were -killed by phenol injections, either by myself or under my supervision in -the camp hospital, and the rest were killed by various means, such as -beatings, by the inmates. - -The above affidavit written in the English language, consisting of five -(5) pages, is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. -This affidavit was given by me freely and voluntarily, without promise -of reward and I was subjected to no duress or threat of any - - [Signed] DR. WALDEMAR HOVEN - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-257 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 283 - - EXTRACT FROM A SWORN STATEMENT BY DR. ERWIN SCHULER (DING), 20 JULY - 1945, CONCERNING EUTHANASIA WITH PHENOL INJECTION - - Freising, 20 July 1945 - -Erwin Schuler, M. D. - -Case 508 - -As ordered I am briefly answering two questions: - -1. _Witness of Euthanasia with Phenol at Buchenwald._ - -At the end of 1942 I took part at a conference in the Military Academy -of Medicine in Berlin. The topic of discussion was the fatal effect of -gas gangrene serum on wounded men. - -Present: Generalarzt Professor Schreiber, hygienist of the Military -Academy of Medicine; SS Oberfuehrer Professor Mrugowsky, hygienist; -Oberstabsarzt Professor Killian, professor in the University of Breslau, -surgeon; a medical officer (surgeon) whose name I did not know; and -myself, as department chief of the Central Institute for the Combating -of Epidemics, Berlin. - -Killian and Mrugowsky gave reports on soldiers who had been given gas -gangrene serum in high quantities (up to 1,500 cc.) and hours -afterwards, while feeling perfectly well, had died suddenly without any -visible reason. Mrugowsky suspected that the cumulative effect of the -phenol content of the injections was responsible for the deaths. - -In the presence of the other gentlemen, Mrugowsky ordered me to take -part in euthanasia with phenol in a concentration camp and to describe -the result in detail, since neither I nor Mrugowsky had ever seen a case -of death by phenol. Mrugowsky himself could not take part in the -euthanasia because of an urgent trip to the East, on the other hand the -affair was urgent for the fighting troops, and the publication of a new -circular for the troop doctors. - -A few days later I asked Dr. Hoven in Buchenwald to notify me when he -performed euthanasia with phenol. The next evening he asked me to come -to the operating theater in the inmates’ hospital. Besides himself and -another doctor—probably Dr. Plaza—only two other prison male nurses, -whom I cannot remember, were present. - -I talked to the doctor about the composition of the phenol injection -and, as far as I can remember, it consisted of undiluted raw phenol, -which was to be administered in doses of 20 cc. - -One by one, four or five prisoners were led in. The upper part of the -body was naked so that their nationality patch [on their clothing] could -not be distinguished. The condition of their bodies was bad and their -age was advanced. I do not remember a diagnosis as to why euthanasia was -to take place, but probably I did not ask about it either. - -They sat down quietly on a chair, that is without any sign of -excitement, near a light. A male nurse blocked the vein in the arm and -Dr. Hoven quickly injected the phenol. They died in an immediate total -convulsion during the actual injection without any sign of other pain. -The time between the beginning of the injection and death I estimate at -about ½ second. The rest of the dose was injected as a precautionary -measure, although part of the injection would have been enough for the -fatal result (I estimate 5 cc.). - -The dead were carried into an adjoining room by the nurses—I estimate -the time of my presence at 10 minutes. - -I reported in Berlin according to orders. I know nothing further to say. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACTS FROM TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY[80] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. FLEMMING: I now turn to the gas gangrene experiments. When examining -the defendants Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, and the witness -Bernhard Schmidt, we heard to what extent gas gangrene became prevalent -at the front. I refer you to the Document NO-578, Prosecution Exhibit -284. I shall have it submitted to you. Would you please tell the -Tribunal whether, in connection with gas gangrene, there was an extreme -necessity in concentration camps and in the army to discover protective -means to combat this disease? - -DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: It was pointed out frequently that no infection can -be taken so seriously in the surgical field as the infection by gas -gangrene, since the mortality cases of these injuries were very high. In -concentration camps, as Noeling told me, we often had cases of gas -gangrene. Therefore, the Asid Works suggested that vaccine should be -used in the same manner as in the case of diphtheria. This was done in -these works sometimes in cases of tetanus. Such vaccine against gas -gangrene was produced by the Behring Works and was tested on students at -Marburg University at first, about which a publication is available. I -received a small part of this gas gangrene toxin in order to protect -people in danger. This gas gangrene toxin I gave to Noeling and he used -it at Buchenwald. The chart is available concerning persons on whom this -vaccine was used. It becomes evident from that that there is even an -increase in temperature following that vaccination, and that we are here -concerned with a completely harmless project which has nothing at all to -do with an infection. - -Q. Dr. Ding in an affidavit (_NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283_) stated that at the -Military Medical Academy a conference took place on the question of gas -gangrene serum. What do you know about that? - -A. It is correct that such a conference actually took place. Whenever -gas gangrene occurred a large amount of gas gangrene serum had to be -used for treatment in order to insure success. It was not a mere ten or -fifteen cubic centimeters, but 400 to 800 cubic centimeters which was -given to the patient in the course of a few days. In Germany all serums -which are obtained from animals, mostly horses, are mixed with 0.5 -percent of phenol and carbolic acid—in order to preserve them—i. e., -to 400 cubic centimeters I added a concentration of two cubic -centimeters of phenol acid. This amount is, of course, far above the -tolerance of human beings. Carbolic acid is one of the strongest acids -we possess. When treating people with gas gangrene serums a number of -deaths occurred. We discussed whether we were dealing with cases of -serum death, resulting from the serum, or whether death was caused by -the phenol added. Ding and I participated in that conference with -others. - - * * * * * - -Q. Did you give Dr. Ding an assignment on the basis of this discussion -to test this phenol question? - -A. Yes, I told him to study the literature and to make use of the -libraries of the pharmacological and forensic medicine institute in -Jena. He was in touch with those institutes. - -Q. Did you give him the assignment to participate in euthanasia with -phenol? - -A. No. I never heard anything about his having carried out such -euthanasia, or of such killings having been carried out. I could not, -therefore, have given him any such order. - -Q. You are aware that in an affidavit of your codefendant Hoven it is -stated that Ding himself carried out killings in Buchenwald with phenol. -Had you given him instructions to that effect? - -A. No. I did not give him any such instructions, and there was no -occasion to do so because death by phenol is well known in literature; -simply reading works on the subject would have sufficed. - -DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I submit Document Mrugowsky 28. I should -like to submit it as Mrugowsky Exhibit 46. It is an affidavit of -Professor Killian, who is a university professor at Halle/Saale. He -says: - - “In 1941-1943 I was consulting surgeon with the 16th Army in the - East. We had experienced numerous cases of death and injury to - the circulatory system due to the effects of gas gangrene serum. - In my opinion, these bad effects cannot only be attributed to - the inoculation of great quantities of unrelated serums, but - also to the addition of one-half percent phenol, as is - prescribed by law. Since up to 150 cc. of gas gangrene - serum—sometimes even more than that—was given intravenously to - wounded in the field, in my opinion the total quantity of phenol - added then approached becoming a danger. This became obvious - after four of my collaborators had had themselves injected - intravenously with a phenol common salt solution of 0.5 percent - density. All of them showed typical signs of phenol poisoning to - a different degree. In a letter to the medical inspectorate I - called their attention to the disappointing effects of the gas - gangrene serum and to the detrimental effect of phenol, and made - proposals for a change. Consequently, I was officially ordered - to report during my stay in Berlin to Oberstarzt Professor - Schreiber, who was a specialist on this matter. Present at this - conference were Professor Mrugowsky and a junior physician whose - name I no longer remember. I did not know any of the three - gentlemen; I saw and spoke to them then for the first time. - Apart from a few general questions concerning bacteriology, we - discussed mainly the gas gangrene serum problem. I had to give - an exact report on what took place at the front and on the - symptoms of poisoning. The discussion then took two directions. - First, the question whether it was possible for industry to - substitute a harmless disinfectant for the dangerous phenol, and - which one of the many substances would be suitable for this - purpose.” - -Number two is not important. And I can skip the next paragraph too. I -come to the last paragraph: - - “I well remember the substance of the discussions and declare - that no mention was made of any experiments in a concentration - camp, or of effecting euthanasia by injecting phenol. Such - considerations never even came up for discussion, let alone an - order in my presence by one of the medical officers. This would - certainly have remained in my memory. I may add that a reason - for such experiments did not exist since the symptoms of phenol - poisoning are well known and may be found in any book on - pharmacology. Apart from this, the question had been - sufficiently settled by the above-mentioned experiments which - the physicians had carried out on themselves. I am convinced - that Dr. Ding’s statements are not true.” [Signed by Professor - Killian, and certified.] - -On the basis of instructions that he was to inform himself from -literature about phenol poisoning—instructions which you gave to -him—what did Ding report? Was the question of gangrene serum, and the -deaths resulting from it, settled? - -DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: Ding made a report. I waited for it for some time -and when it did not come I myself read up on this question. Then I was -no longer interested in his report. - -Q. On page 20 of the Ding diary (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_) it says that a -special experiment on four persons was carried out on behalf of -Gruppenfuehrer Nebe. What do you know about that? - -A. I have already mentioned the case of Hauptscharfuehrer Koehler, who -was at the hospital at Weimar, who died from poisoning. Inaccurate -statements were given about his death and autopsy. It was said that they -occurred in the Buchenwald concentration camp—which is not true. At the -discussion of the autopsy findings in the Reich Criminal Police Office, -the opinion had been expressed that this death might have resulted from -pervitin together with a narcotic drug. I participated in this -discussion. - -DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I have already submitted the affidavit by -Dr. Konrad Morgen. (_Mrugowsky 29, Mrugowsky Ex. 36._) When I submitted -it I read the first one and one-half pages. I should now like to read -the following portion: - - “Professor Dr. Timm”—that is, the forensic medical expert from - Vienna who performed the autopsy on Koehler—“came to the - opinion that there were two possibilities: first, that a South - American poison had been used which was totally unknown to us - and which dissolves completely in the human body; second, that a - combination of drugs had been used. One drug had excited the - circulation to the point of exhaustion, the other drug had acted - as an antidote. Professor Dr. Timm spoke of the possibility that - pervitin had been used together with a soporific. The idea that - a South American poison had been used was rejected from a - criminological point of view. From a technical point of view the - second possibility would have been quite possible. - - “I had to report the case to the Reich Security Main Office. - Subsequently, a conference took place in the Reich Security Main - Office at which quite a number of persons were present. The - chief of the Reich Security Main Office [sic], Gruppenfuehrer - Mueller, presided. Gruppenfuehrer Nebe of the Reich Criminal - Police was also present, as well as Professor Dr. Mrugowsky. At - the conference various persons, among others also Dr. Mrugowsky, - pointed out that pervitin was not a poison, that it could be - obtained without a prescription. One of the gentlemen present - pointed out that in America experiments were carried out where - up to 100 tablets of pervitin were administered and the effects - were not fatal. But no one present could answer the question of - whether a combination of pervitin and a soporific would be - harmless, or whether it would lead to an increased reaction to - any one direction. The latter appeared improbable to the - experts. In order to settle this question Gruppenfuehrer Mueller - ordered that an experiment be conducted. He ordered that Dr. - Ding, whom he knew, should conduct this experiment in - Buchenwald. - - “It was ruled that in this experiment, which was to settle the - purely criminal side of the question, only minute quantities of - pervitin and soporific should be used, since it would be - impossible to give large quantities of pervitin and a soporific - unobtrusively to the prospective victim. Moreover, larger - quantities of these drugs would have been found in any case by - means of a chemical analysis. The scientific theoretical problem - concerning the harmfulness or even deadliness of maximum doses - did not interest anyone. - - “I was present at the experiments at Buchenwald. - - “Five persons were presented to us for testing, because - Gruppenfuehrer Mueller had ordered experiments to be conducted - on five persons. I checked the papers of the persons to be - experimented on prior to the experiment. They were Russians who - had deserted, or workers, who had formed a gang, stolen, and - plundered, and had even been charged with murder. They had all - been sentenced to death before a special court in Pomerania. - Gruppenfuehrer Mueller had already previously been given the - order for their execution. - - “I had agreed with Dr. Ding that a preliminary experiment should - be made on three persons to see the kind of reaction this - combination had in the organism. Some of the condemned could - speak German. They were told that the experiments were neither - dangerous nor painful, and that by taking part they would at - least put off their execution. Thereupon they all volunteered. - Dr. Ding chose three of them. They were transferred to Block 46. - There they were given a dose of pervitin and a subcutaneous - injection of a soporific. Then they had to go to bed. They fell - asleep. Their sleep was very restless. One of them slept for 20 - hours. The others awoke a little earlier * * *.” - -Then he says that none of them showed the symptoms which Koehler had -shown, and that the experiment was considered completed. In the last -sentence of the next paragraph he says, “Therefore, I told Dr. Ding that -he should not make any more experiments, and I reported this to -Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.” I shall read the last paragraph in another -connection. - -According to the affidavit of Dr. Morgen, Mueller ordered Ding to carry -out the experiment at Buchenwald. Did you receive a report on this -experiment? - -A. No, I did not receive a report on it. - - * * * * * - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - -MR. HARDY: Prior to the afternoon recess, Doctor, we were discussing the -phenol problem. Now, in this connection, did you at any time propose -experiments to be conducted at Buchenwald concerning the tolerance of -serum or sera containing phenol? That is, did you propose that in 1942 -or 1943 at any time? - -DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: No. No such suggestions were made and they were not -necessary, because in Germany every serum contains phenol. In the German -serum industry there is no serum produced without phenol. I am speaking -of the sera for therapeutic purposes, not vaccines. - -Q. Then at no time did you even propose that experiments be conducted to -determine the tolerance of sera containing phenol; is that what you say? - -A. No. I never suggested that. - -Q. Are you sure, Doctor? - -A. Yes. - -MR. HARDY: At this time, your Honor, I offer Document NO-1198 as -Prosecution Exhibit 466, for identification. This is a letter dated -Berlin, 24 August 1944. Subject: Service of experiments. It has -reference-file indexes, addressed to the chief hygienist on the staff of -the Reich Physician SS and Police, Berlin-Zehlendorf: - - “Dear Mrugowsky, - - “I am able to inform you that the Reich Leader SS has approved - today the series of experiments proposed by you. - - “1. Specific therapy with typhus. - - “2. Tolerance of sera containing phenol. - - “I agree that both series of experiments in the department for - typhus and virus research of the Hygienic Institute of the - Waffen SS in Weimar-Buchenwald should be carried out, and - request that I be informed of the course of the findings, - perhaps through intermediary reports.” - - “By order of Grawitz.” - -The signature is “NICOLAI”. - -Q. Now this states that the Reich Leader SS has approved a series of -experiments proposed by you and the experiments may be carried out in -Buchenwald. You stated that you never proposed experiments to determine -the tolerance of sera containing phenol. Now do you maintain, Doctor, -that you never initiated any experimentation to determine the tolerance -of sera containing phenol? - -A. Yes. The connection here is something quite different. I shall -discuss point two first. - -I have already said that in Germany there were no sera without phenol. -In connection with this phenol question in German serum, I informed -Grawitz about the question which is being discussed here—Killian and -Schreiber were present—and I told him that industry should try to -produce sera without phenol, as the French serum industry had been doing -for some time. I knew that suggestions to that effect had been sent to -the industry, but that the German serum industry had refused, during the -war, to effect any such basic change in its production because it was -not in a position to obtain the necessary special apparatus, filters, -etc. I therefore told Grawitz that in serum therapy for ordinary -diseases—I was thinking primarily of diphtheria, where large quantities -of serum were used at the time in the therapy against diphtheria once it -had broken out, because the highly concentrated serum was no longer -available in necessary quantities—I told him that in the case of such -diseases one should watch to see whether injury from phenol might -result. I told him also that it would be desirable to know whether serum -without phenol would definitely prevent such shock. I also remember that -this point too had connection with the fact that we had negotiated with -the Behring Works for the production of serum frequently in small -quantities in order to use it, and to compare it with other serum. If I -remember correctly this involved diphtheria serum, that is the serum -which is used most in Germany. The comparison was to be made of symptoms -following the administration of the usual antidiphtheria serum -containing phenol on children, and it was to be noted whether the -symptoms would appear; and the symptoms following the administration of -serum free of phenol were also to be noted. This was what Grawitz meant -here, and he called that a series of experiments. I might point out that -this expressed series of experiments in this case cannot refer to -artificial infection, because it is not possible to have a human being -artificially infected with diphtheria serum. - -Q. Doctor, after receiving this confirmation of your proposals to -perform experiments as outlined in this letter, you must have issued -orders in that regard. Now to whom did you issue those orders? - -A. No. I did not issue any orders. In my opinion this concerns -activities of some civilian hospitals; for among the troops, and in -concentration camps, we did not have any diphtheria patients. - -Q. Just a moment, Doctor. But it is said in this letter that Grawitz -agrees that these experiments can be carried out in the Department for -Typhus and Virus Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS in -Weimar-Buchenwald. Did you or did you not carry out these experiments in -Weimar-Buchenwald? - -A. No. - -Q. Never issued any orders to carry out such experiments to Ding, for -instance? - -A. I have already explained what this series of experiments means. It is -possible that I suggested, for example, that he was to vaccinate one -child with one kind of serum and another child with another serum. That -is possible; I don’t remember about that. But to try out serum -containing phenol on human beings, that I did not order. * * * - ------ - -[80] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 27, 28, -31 Mar and 2, 3 Apr 1947, pp. 5000-5244, 5334-5464. - - 15. EXPERIMENTS FOR MASS STERILIZATION - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Karl Brandt, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, -Poppendick, Brack, Pokorny, and Oberheuser were charged with special -responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving -sterilization experiments (par. 6 (I) of the indictment). In the course -of the trial the prosecution withdrew this charge in the case of the -defendants Mrugowsky and Oberheuser. On this charge the defendants -Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, and Brack were convicted, and the defendants -Karl Brandt, Poppendick, and Pokorny were acquitted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the experiments for mass -sterilization is contained in its closing brief against the defendant -Rudolf Brandt. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages -695 to 702. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on -these experiments has been selected from the final plea for the -defendant Gebhardt and closing brief for the defendant Pokorny. It -appears below on pages 702 to 708. This argumentation is followed by -selections from the evidence on pages 710 to 738. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT - RUDOLF BRANDT_ - - _Sterilization Experiments_ - -By 1941 it was the accepted policy of the Third Reich to exterminate the -Jewish population of Germany and the occupied countries.[81] Because of -the pressing need for laborers, sterilization of Jews able to work was -considered as an alternative to outright extermination. (_NO-205, Pros. -Ex. 163._) - -In order to ascertain cheap and fast working methods for sterilization, -experimentation on concentration camp inmates by means of drugs -(_NO-036, Pros. Ex. 143_), injection of an irritating solution (_NO-212, -Pros. Ex. 173_) and X-rays and surgical operation (_Tr. pp. 556-9_) were -carried out on a large scale. Brandt not only had full knowledge of -these experiments, but collaborated actively in all of them. - -The purpose of the sterilization experiments is well described by Brandt -in his own affidavit: - - “Himmler was extremely interested in the development of a cheap - and rapid sterilization method which could be used against - enemies of Germany, such as the Russians, Poles, and Jews. One - hoped thereby not only to defeat the enemy but to exterminate - him. The capacity for work of the sterilized persons could be - exploited by Germany, while the danger of propagation would be - eliminated. As this mass sterilization was part of Himmler’s - racial theory, particular time and care were devoted to these - sterilization experiments. Surgical sterilization was of course - known in Germany and applied; this included castration. For mass - application, however, this procedure was considered as too slow - and too expensive. It was further desired that a procedure be - found which would result in sterilization that was not - immediately noticeable.” (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._) - -Sterilization experiments in order to ascertain the efficacy of a drug -known as caladium seguinum (Schweigrohr) were suggested to Himmler by -the defendant Pokorny in October 1941. Pokorny reported that Dr. Madaus -had found, as a result of his research on medical sterilization of -animals, that caladium seguinum produced sterility in animals when -administered orally or by injection. Pokorny further stated in his -letter that: - - “* * * the immense importance of this drug in the present fight - of our people occurred to me. _If, on the basis, of this - research, it were possible to produce a drug which after a - relatively short time effects an imperceptible sterilization on - human beings, then we would have a new powerful weapon at our - disposal._ The thought alone that the 3 million Bolsheviks, at - present German prisoners, could be sterilized so that they could - be used as laborers but be prevented from reproduction, opens - the most far reaching perspectives.” - -He therefore advocated immediate research on human beings in order to -determine the dose and length of treatment, the cultivation of the plant -caladium seguinum in hothouses, and chemical research in order to -produce the drug synthetically on a large scale. (_NO-035, Pros. Ex. -142._) - -Himmler agreed to Pokorny’s suggestions and requested Pohl, on 10 March -1942, to contact Dr. Madaus and to “offer him possibilities for doing -research in cooperation with the Reich Physician SS (Grawitz) on -criminals who would have to be sterilized in any case.” He further -ordered that the intended plan of research should be submitted to him. -It was the defendant Rudolf Brandt who forwarded a copy of this letter -to Grawitz (_NO-036, Pros. Ex. 143_) and furnished him, on 20 April, -with a copy of Pokorny’s report and information on the publications of -Madaus concerning medicinal sterilization of animals. (_NO-037, Pros. -Ex. 146._) - -Brandt’s office submitted Madaus’ report on the studies of experiments -on animals to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, Chief of the Security -Police and SD. The letter of transmittal, dated 23 April 1942, bears the -same file number as Himmler’s letter to Pohl (752/5) and refers -expressly to “the question of sterilization by medicine.” (_NO-047, -Pros. Ex. 145._) - -In June 1942 Brandt requested a report from Pohl, Chief of the WVHA, as -to the progress of the preparation for experiments. (_NO-038, Pros. Ex. -147._) Pohl reported on 3 June 1942 that since “Schweigrohr,” from which -caladium seguinum was derived, grew only in North America and could not -be exported in adequate quantities, attempts to grow the plant from seed -cultivated in hothouses had been made by Dr. Koch of the Biological -Institute of the Madaus Works. These attempts had been successful, but -the process of growing the plant and developing the drug was not speedy -enough and the yield not sufficient to permit experimentation on a -_large scale_. In order to remove these difficulties, he said that it -would be necessary to build a larger hothouse. (_NO-046a, Pros. Ex. -148._) On 11 June, Brandt advised Pohl that he had informed Himmler of -his letter and that Himmler wanted Pohl to see to it that a large -hothouse was placed at Dr. Koch’s disposal as soon as possible as -Himmler considered the experiments extremely important. Brandt also -asked Pohl for further reports in the matter. (_NO-046b, Pros. Ex. -149._) Only eight days later Brandt himself had a conference with Pohl -in which, among other things, he informed Pohl of Himmler’s request to -have the ingredients of caladium seguinum thoroughly investigated to -determine whether equally effective ingredients could be found in plants -more easily accessible. Brandt requested that the work of Dr. Koch -should be carried out to the fullest extent. He informed Pohl that -experiments should be conducted in concentration camps with the amount -of the drug then available. Pohl agreed to take the necessary steps at -once. (_NO-044, Pros, Ex. 150._) Department IV-B-4 of the Reich Security -Main Office, the agency which was in charge of the solution of the -Jewish question[82] was informed by a subordinate of Brandt about -Madaus’ research work and requested to collaborate closely with Pohl in -this matter. (_NO-050, Pros. Ex. 151._) A copy of this letter was -forwarded to the defendant Rudolf Brandt. (_NO-051, Pros. Ex. 152._) - -The Deputy Gauleiter of Gau Lower Danube (Lower Austria), SS -Obergruppenfuehrer Gerland, informed Himmler on 24 August 1942 that the -Director of the Office for Racial Policy in that province, Dr. -Fehringer, had examined the question of mass sterilization and, in this -connection, had come across Dr. Madaus’ studies on medicinal -sterilization with caladium seguinum. For reasons similar to those -suggested by the defendant Pokorny (_NO-035, Pros. Ex. 142_), Gerland -advocated experimentation on inmates of the gypsy camp of Lackenbach in -Gau Lower Danube. Gerland pointed out that if these experiments were -successful, as was expected, it would be possible to sterilize -practically unlimited numbers of people in the shortest time and in the -simplest way conceivable. (_NO-039, Pros. Ex. 153._) - -It was the defendant Rudolf Brandt who took the matter up and informed -Gerland on 29 August of the steps which had already been taken in -respect to experiments with caladium seguinum. From Brandt’s letter, it -is apparent that Himmler was not present at that time. Brandt took care -of this matter on his own initiative and informed Gerland that Pohl and -Grawitz were in charge of the experiments. He requested information from -Gerland whether Dr. Fehringer had caladium seguinum available and what -means for the procurement of this plant the latter would suggest. -(_NO-040, Pros. Ex. 154._) Copies of Gerland’s letter were forwarded by -Brandt to Pohl and Grawitz. On 7 September 1942, Pohl gave Gerland -further details and informed him that he and Dr. Lolling were personally -supervising the experiments. Pohl, in turn, sent copies of this letter -to Rudolf Brandt and Grawitz. In the covering letter to Brandt, Pohl -informed him that he had been to the Madaus Works to convince himself of -the progress of the experiments and that Dr. Lolling would cooperate in -them. An agreement had been reached with Madaus “to transfer the -experiments to our concentration camps as soon as possible.” (_NO-041, -Pros. Ex. 156._) - -On 14 October 1942, Gerland wrote to Rudolf Brandt and informed him of -the letter he had received from Pohl. He stated that he considered Dr. -Fehringer’s suggestion to use inmates of the gypsy camp of Lackenbach as -obsolete, as Pohl had informed him that Lolling was already -collaborating with the Biological Institute of Madaus. He further -advised Brandt that Fehringer was of the opinion that it was quite -possible to produce caladium seguinum chemically or have the plant -cultivated in hothouses to an extent which would be sufficient for -experimental purposes. He also suggested collaboration between Lolling -and Fehringer. (_NO-043, Pros. Ex. 157._) Brandt’s reply of 25 October -reveals that he, on his own initiative in Himmler’s absence, agreed to -the collaboration between Fehringer and Lolling. (_NO-049, Pros. Ex. -159._) Brandt sent copies of Gerland’s letter of 14 October (_NO-043, -Pros. Ex. 157_) and his reply (_NO-049, Pros. Ex. 159_) to Pohl. In his -covering letter to Pohl he expressed the conviction that in spite of the -fact that he could not consult Himmler, he was convinced that the latter -would certainly welcome experiments to produce caladium seguinum -synthetically. He asked Pohl to arrange for a contact between Lolling -and Fehringer. (_NO-048, Pros. Ex. 158._) - -There is no reasonable doubt that the sterilization experiments with -caladium seguinum were, in fact, carried out on concentration camp -inmates. Himmler, who was the highest authority to decide such -questions, not only gave his consent to these experiments (_NO-036, -Pros. Ex. 143_) but considered them “extremely important” (_NO-046b, -Pros. Ex. 149_) and requested that they should be carried out in the -concentration camps _in any case_. (_NO-044, Pros. Ex. 150._) Pohl, who -was in charge of the administration of the concentration camps, agreed -upon the request of Brandt to take the necessary steps immediately. -(_NO-044, Pros. Ex. 150._) There can be no doubt that Department IV-B-4 -of the Reich Security Main Office, which was charged with the solution -of the Jewish question, was informed about Madaus’ research work for the -purpose of furnishing the necessary Jewish victims for the experiments. -The collaboration of Dr. Lolling, who was the doctor in charge of all -concentration camps, can only be explained in connection with -experimentation in these camps. This is also clear from Gerland’s letter -to Brandt: - - “SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl has informed me that _the doctor of - his Main Office_ is already collaborating with the Madaus - Biological Institute for research on the effects of caladium - seguinum, so that the suggestion of my District Main Office - Leader, Dr. Fehringer, _becomes obsolete_.” [Emphasis added.] - (_NO-043, Pros. Ex. 157._) - -It can only be concluded that Pohl and Lolling carried out the -experiments in concentration camps as was agreed upon between them, -Himmler, Brandt, and Madaus. (_NO-043, Pros. Ex. 157._) Moreover, Brandt -himself admitted in his affidavit that experiments with caladium -seguinum on human beings were performed in concentration camps: - - “As result of Pokorny’s suggestion experiments were conducted - upon concentration camp prisoners in order to test the effect of - the drug. Simultaneously all efforts were made to cultivate the - plant in large quantities. Oswald Pohl, Chief of the Economic - and Administrative Main Office, took a personal interest in this - matter. Hothouses were used, with a certain amount of success, - to cultivate this plant, and the experiments were continued.” - (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._) - -On 30 May 1942, Dr. Clauberg wrote to Himmler asking his support on -sterilization experiments on female concentration camp inmates. -(_NO-211, Pros. Ex. 169._) On 4 June the defendant Poppendick forwarded -to Rudolf Brandt a list of doctors who were authorized to carry out -sterilization. Clauberg is listed among these doctors. (_NO-214, Pros. -Ex. 168._) On 7 and 8 July, a conference took place between Himmler, -Gebhardt, Gluecks, and Clauberg. The topic of discussion was the -sterilization of Jewesses. Clauberg was promised by Himmler that the -Auschwitz concentration camp would be placed at his disposal for -experiments on human beings. He was assigned the task of performing -experiments to test a method of sterilizing persons without their -knowledge. He was ordered to report on this matter as soon as possible -so that measures could be taken “for the practical realization of the -sterilizations on a larger scale”. It was suggested that Hohlfelder be -consulted on the sterilization of men by X-rays. The participants in the -conference were admonished that these experiments were a matter of -utmost secrecy. Rudolf Brandt denied having been present at this -conference. Be that as it may, one of the two file memoranda which -reveal complete knowledge of all details discussed in this conference -was dictated by Brandt (_NO-215, Pros. Ex. 172_), and the other was -signed by him. (_NO-216, Pros. Ex. 170._) - -On 10 July 1942, Rudolf Brandt wrote a letter to Clauberg in which he -informed him of the details of his assignment and the plans for the -execution of the experiments. Clauberg was ordered to report to Himmler -on how long it would take to sterilize, a thousand Jewesses by his -method. It was suggested that Clauberg should contact Pohl and a camp -physician of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp in order to perform -there his sterilization experiments. Brandt stated further: - - “Thorough experiments should be conducted to investigate the - effect of the sterilization, largely in a way that you could - find out after a certain time, which would have to be _fixed, - perhaps by X-rays_, what kind of changes have taken place. In - some cases a practical experiment might be arranged by locking - up a Jewess and a Jew together for a certain period and then - seeing what results are achieved. - - “I ask you _to let me know your opinion about my letter for the - information of the Reich Leader SS_.” [Emphasis added.] - (_NO-213, Pros. Ex. 171._) - -Copies of this letter were sent by Brandt to Pohl, Grawitz, SS -Sturmbannfuehrer Koegel of the Economic and Administrative Main Office, -and to Gruppenfuehrer Mueller of the Reich Security Main Office. On 7 -June 1943, Clauberg was able to report, on the basis of his experiments, -that it would be possible to sterilize several hundred, if not a -thousand, per day by his methods. He stated that sterilization could be -“performed by a single injection made from the entrance of the uterus in -the course of the usual customary gynecological examination”. (_NO-212, -Pros. Ex. 173._) - -The sterilization experiments of Clauberg were, in fact, carried out in -the Auschwitz concentration camp. Brandt communicated with Clauberg on -this matter again on 19 June and 22 July 1943. While these two letters -are not available, it is clear from Clauberg’s reply to Brandt, dated 6 -August, that these communications were reminders to Clauberg to expedite -his experimentation. In his reply, Clauberg stated: - - “I really do need the _second X-ray installation—I can give you - the explanation only by word of mouth—at any rate the - probability exists that even more of the installations will be - needed later on_ (_it depends on, the application of my results - the moment these are determined_). For I can get the - installation without further difficulties, that is, it is - ‘_waiting_’ for me—_really I have got it already_! - - “I had an opportunity _to acquire one myself_ and I quickly laid - hands on it, and the installation has been set up for some - weeks. But what I care for is the following: - - “_I urgently need this installation here in Koenigshuette for my - contrary (positive) research. But I cannot spare it in Auschwitz - until I get a second installation from the Waffen SS._ If I may - tell you something between ourselves—the fact is that I will - _be able to replace my own existing installation provided the - Reich Leader SS will give me his approval_. I would not bother - either him or you with this _unless it were really necessary_.” - (_NO-210, Pros. Ex. 174._) - -Brandt himself admitted in his affidavit that Clauberg did carry out -sterilization experiments in the Auschwitz concentration camp on a large -scale. He stated: - - “Dr. Clauberg developed further a method for the sterilization - of women. This method was based upon the injection of an - irritating solution into the uterus. Clauberg conducted - widespread experiments on Jewish women and gypsies in the - Auschwitz concentration camp. Several thousand women were - sterilized by Clauberg in Auschwitz.” (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._) - -Sterilization of Jews by means of X-rays was suggested to Himmler by the -defendant Brack in the spring of 1941. (_NO-426, Pros. Ex. 160._) -Himmler requested Brack to investigate with some of the physicians who -were active in the euthanasia program, the possibility of sterilization -which would keep the victims unaware of their terrible fate. (_Tr. p. -7484._) On 28 March 1941, Brack forwarded to Himmler a report of the -results of experiments concerning X-ray castrations in which he stated -that mass sterilization by means of X-rays could be carried out without -difficulty. Brack estimated that with twenty X-ray installations, -sterilization of 3,000 to 4,000 victims could be carried out daily. -(_NO-203, Pros. Ex. 161._) On 12 May 1941 a subordinate of Brandt, SS -Sturmbannfuehrer Tiefenbacher, acknowledged receipt of Brack’s report -and sent a copy to the Chief of the Security Police and SD, Heydrich. -(_NO-204, Pros. Ex. 162._) - -The invasion of Russia began in the summer of 1941 and Brack’s proposal -was not acted on immediately, but on 23 June 1942, when Germany appeared -to be on the verge of victory, Brack again wrote to Himmler suggesting -the sterilization of Jews who were able to work. Jews unable to work -were being exterminated. (_NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163._) Himmler wrote to -Brack on 11 August 1942 that further experiments to ascertain the -effectiveness of X-ray sterilization should be carried out on -concentration camp inmates by expert physicians who were to be furnished -by Brack’s chief, Bouhler. Rudolf Brandt sent copies of this letter to -Pohl and Grawitz in order to put Himmler’s decision into effect. -(_NO-206, Pros. Ex. 164._) Brack ordered his deputy, Blankenburg, to -contact the chiefs of the concentration camps for this purpose. -Blankenburg’s letter, which communicated this fact to Himmler, was -received by Brandt’s office on 15 August 1942. (_NO-207, Pros. Ex. -165._) As a result, experiments on inmates in the Auschwitz -concentration camp were carried out by Dr. Schumann. (_NO-208, Pros. Ex. -166._) One of the victims of these atrocious experiments who, after -having been subjected to severe doses of X-ray in the genital area, was -castrated by operation in order to determine the effects of the X-ray. -(_Tr. p. 541._) At least 100 involuntary experimental subjects—Poles, -Russians, French, and prisoners of war—were used for these experiments. -Only young, well-built inmates, in the best of health, were selected for -them. (_Tr. pp. 556-7._) Nearly all the victims of these experiments -were exterminated as the severe X-ray burns made them incapable of -working. (_Tr. p. 557; Tr. p. 543._) Brandt admitted in his pretrial -affidavit that “sterilization experiments were likewise conducted with -X-rays. Dr. Schumann applied this procedure in Auschwitz and sterilized -a number of men.” (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._) - - * * * * * - - c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT - GEBHARDT_[83] - - * * * * * - - _The Sterilization Experiments_ - -The defendant Gebhardt is also accused of special responsibility for -these experiments and of participation in them. The evidence, however, -proved that this contention of the indictment is not true. First of all -it should be pointed out that the life work of the defendant Gebhardt as -a physician was based on the principle of helping the physically and -mentally affected and to find cures for restoring them as fully -qualified members of human society. That was the reason for the -establishment of the training camp Hohenaschau in the lower Alps of -Bavaria, which was repeatedly mentioned in the evidence. He also made -this principle the finding principle of his work as chief physician of -the hospital at Hohenlychen. The defendant Gebhardt did not hold the -opinion that a sound population policy could be realized by negative -measures only; on the contrary, he was convinced that the faculties of -physically and mentally handicapped patients ought to be improved by new -methods of treatment and their efficiency thus increased. He applied -these principles not only in his rehabilitation surgery dealing with -injuries but also in the cure of hereditary physical defects. I am here -referring to the affidavits of Professor Dr. Iseling, Professor Dr. -Buerkle de la Camp, and of the Generalarzt, Dr. von Heuss. (_Gebhardt 7, -Gebhardt Ex. 1_; _Gebhardt 8, Gebhardt Ex. 2_; _Gebhardt 9, Gebhardt Ex. -3_.) I further refer to the affidavits presented in court as exhibits in -volume II of my document books. All these witnesses’ affidavits in -connection with the defendant’s own statements make it obvious that his -medical attitude was not based on the principle of negative selection -and the destruction of unworthy lives or the prevention of propagation -of such human beings but, on the contrary, that he was led by the -conviction that these human beings must be helped insofar as medical -science was able to help them at all. In their presentation of evidence, -the prosecution presented documents concerned with the sterilization -experiments. It is obvious from these documents that three different -methods of quick and simple sterilization had been considered. - -The first experiments were supposed to be carried out with caladium -seguinum. The documents presented in this connection proved clearly that -the defendant Gebhardt had nothing to do with this matter and that he -apparently had no knowledge of it. May I, as a matter of precaution, -point out the following: to start with, I wish to refer to the letter of -Reich Leader SS Himmler to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl of 10 March 1942, -which proves that the experiments with caladium seguinum were supposed -to be carried out on criminals whose sterilization had been ordered -before that anyway. (_NO-036, Pros. Ex. 143._) In this connection I -should like to point out that the German Penal Code expressly provides -in certain cases for compulsory sterilization and castration of certain -types of criminals. The experiments in themselves, therefore, need not -be contrary to the law. From the other documents presented by the -prosecution it is, however, to be seen that the plans to carry out -sterilizations with caladium seguinum were dropped. It turned out that a -cultivation of this plant, or at least of a quantity adequate for -experimental purposes was impossible. From the evidence presented by the -prosecution it is obvious that it only came to preparatory measures -which, according to generally acknowledged principles, cannot be -considered punishable. - -The second part of the documents deals with sterilization by X-rays. The -prosecution presented no evidence from which it can be concluded that -the defendant Gebhardt had knowledge of this matter. - -Finally, the third part of the documents deals with sterilization -experiments conforming with the methods of Professor Dr. Clauberg. From -Professor Dr. Clauberg’s letter to the Reich Leader SS Himmler dated 30 -May 1942 presented by the prosecution as evidence, it is obvious that -the initiative for these experiments and the methods used originated -exclusively with Professor Clauberg himself. In this connection, it must -be pointed out that it was quite obvious that Professor Clauberg’s -intention was not only to develop the simplest possible method of -sterilization, but that he aimed at the establishment of an -all-inclusive “Research Institute for Propagation Biology” with due -consideration for the demands of a positive population policy. This is -demonstrated among other things by the content of Document NO-211, -Prosecution Exhibit 169, and the plan for this research institute -attached to that document. - -In the course of evidence and referring to the sterilization -experiments, the prosecution has submitted two file notes of the -defendant Rudolf Brandt (_NO-216, Pros. Ex. 170_; _NO-215, Pros. Ex. -172_) which refer to a discussion with the Reich Leader SS on 7 July -1942 and 8 July 1942, in which the defendant Gebhardt had participated. -The evidence has shown that these are two file notes which refer to the -same discussion. The evidence, however, has further demonstrated that -this was the very discussion during which the conditions were -established under which the sulfanilamide experiments were to be carried -out. This was the reason why the defendant Gebhardt took part in this -discussion at all. The defendant Rudolf Brandt who had written these -file notes did not participate in the discussion, and obviously the file -notes were made due to some remarks made by Reich Leader SS Himmler to -the defendant Brandt following the discussion. - -The fact that the defendant Gebhardt had nothing whatsoever to do with -these sterilization experiments is also demonstrated by another document -which was also introduced as evidence by the prosecution. I refer in -this connection to the letter which the defendant Brandt by order of the -Reich Leader SS sent to Professor Clauberg on 10 July 1942, that is, a -few days after the discussion mentioned. This letter has been submitted -to the Tribunal by the prosecution. (_NO-213, Pros. Ex. 171._) Copies of -this letter were sent to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, to SS -Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz in his capacity as Reich Physician SS and to two -other offices, but not to the defendant Gebhardt. There can be no doubt -that a copy of this letter would have been sent to this defendant, too, -if his participation in Clauberg’s experiments would have been decided -upon or even considered in any form. This seems to be the more -impossible, apart from the reasons already given, since the defendant -Gebhardt at no time concerned himself with sterilization problems. In -this connection it is necessary to refer briefly to the affidavit of the -defendant Rudolf Brandt, of 19 October 1946, which has been introduced -by the prosecution and in which it is asserted among other things that -“Dr. Karl Gebhardt apparently performed surgical sterilization at the -Ravensbrueck camp.” (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._) By the wording of this -affidavit it is already demonstrated that here only an assumption is -stated. The defendant Rudolf Brandt could not state any facts on which -he could base this assumption. In view of the other result of the -evidence, and above all because of Rudolf Brandt’s own statements, no -substantial value can be attached to this affidavit. In these -circumstances it will be useless to discuss this question any further, -especially also in view of the fact that surgical sterilization offers -no problems and that it is difficult to understand what reasons the -defendant Gebhardt could have had to work on this field which was quite -foreign to him. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT - POKORNY_ - - * * * * * - -Sterilization with caladium seguinum is impossible as is shown by the -following opinions: - -1. Opinion of Dr. August Wilhelm Forst of the University of Munich. -(_Pokorny 20, Pokorny Ex. 28._) This opinion states: - - “Apart from all these restrictions it appears to me that the - whole idea cannot claim to have any actual significance, since - it would hardly have been possible to import tropical plants in - large numbers to Europe during the war and to work out a - rational method for production of the effective substance as - well as the initiation of animal experiments on a broad basis. - This would have required disproportionally more time than was - available up to the time when the war was lost.” - -2. Opinion of Professor Dr. Helmuth Weese, Director of the -Pharmacological Institute of the Medical Academy in Duesseldorf. -(_Pokorny 19, Pokorny Ex. 27._) This opinion states: - - “Asked whether it can be assumed that after studying the work of - G. Madaus and Dr. E. Koch, ‘Studies in Animal Experiments - concerning Medical Sterilization by Caladium Seguinum’ in the - Journal of Experimental Medicine, page 68, 1941, a doctor can - come to the conclusion that he can sterilize human beings with - caladium seguinum, I have the following comment: - - “In the research mentioned it was proved that the authors - managed to sterilize rats by feeding them with the juice of - caladium seguinum. The proof is not only given by pairing - experiments but by anatomical examinations. In order to achieve - this sterilization of female as well as of male rats weighing - 150-180 grams, daily doses of ½ cubic centimeter for each rat - had to be administered 30-50 times and 40-90 times, - respectively, without assuring a certain result. Applied to a - human being weighing 70 kilograms this would mean that 200 grams - of juice would have to be administered daily. - - “It is also proved in these examinations that a large number of - the animals treated died from the poisonous effects of the - caladium juice. The juice has therefore no specific action on - the reproductive system. It is still completely unknown if these - injurious complications are caused by the main substance of the - juice or any other ingredients. - - “Such nonspecific damage to the reproductive system in similar - ways but with different substances is also observed in human - beings, for example as result of serious abuse of nicotine, - morphine, etc., where it also occurs only together with most - severe harm to other functions. - - “The question arises for every doctor if these experiments on - rats can be applied to human beings at all. Madaus and Koch - reject them on principle because they merely want to determine - if the layman’s belief about sterilizing men with large amounts - of the caladium extract can be proved in animal experiments. - - “A prerequisite for the use of the caladium extract on human - beings in our countries would be the cultivation in central - Europe of the South American caladium. This appears extremely - improbable to any student of natural science with the least - experience. Even if it could be cultivated, this would not prove - that it would produce the same effective substances in - sufficient quantities in our moderate climate. - - “Because of the uncertain effect of the caladium extract, its - high toxicity, the doubts as to its successful cultivation and - use in our moderate climate, I consider it extremely improbable - that even a doctor with only average intelligence could in - seriousness embark on an experiment to sterilize human beings - with caladium extract. No other convincing foundation on which - the problem under discussion might be based besides the work of - Madaus and Koch is known to me.” - -3. Opinion of Dr. Friedrich Jung, lecturer at the Pharmacological -Institute of Wuerzburg University. (_Pokorny 30, Pokorny Ex. 30._) This -opinion states: - - “Summary: The findings of Madaus and Koch in their work ‘Studies - in Animal Experiments concerning Medical Sterilization by - Caladium Seguinum’ are certainly valid, but they do not prove - anything with regard to a specific sterilizing effect of - caladium seguinum; they are rather to be accepted as part of the - general poisonous effect of the caladium extract. One can - therefore sterilize with caladium or achieve the effect of - castration, but not more and not less than one can sterilize by - hunger, vitamin deficiency, infections, psychic insults, etc. - The experiments of Madaus and Koch are in no way conclusive with - regard to human beings. The symptoms on the sexual glands of the - experimental animals are only a reversible partial symptom of a - long lasting, almost fatal, serious injury to the entire - organism, and have no connection with an actual sterilization or - castration. Dr. Pokorny’s proposals based upon certain - completely unfounded conclusions drawn from Madaus’ work can be - recognized even by slightly educated men as quite apparently - utopian.” - -4. The expert witness of the prosecution, Dr. Friedrich Scheiffart, -writes (_NO-3347, Pros. Ex. 546_): - - “The experimental sterilization by caladium seguinum is a - scientifically interesting but, in practice, an unimportant - addition to the group of pharmacological methods of - sterilization, which without exception in their totality have - not gone beyond a certain theoretical interest.” - -The prosecution itself states (_Tr. p. 525_): - - “The prosecution admits openly that it cannot prove that - sterilization was actually brought about through this drug. We - have not been able to find anybody who has been actually - sterilized by it. But we maintain that it is nevertheless a - crime. We strongly hope that no permanent sterilization has been - caused in any case with this drug. However it is fortunate that - the plants from which this substance was received could not be - cultivated to a greater extent.” - -_Final Summary of the Defense_: - -Nothing could or did occur with the caladium plant as the prosecution -admits and as has completely been proved by the expert opinions. - -In an affidavit by Karl Tauboeck (_NO-3963, Pros. Ex. 528_) the -prosecution referred to the idea that sterilization with caladium -seguinum is not an ideal one, but a matter which lies well within the -bounds of possibility. - -The defense on the other hand contends that this affidavit is lacking in -credibility because of the expert opinions. The expert witness of the -defense, university lecturer Dr. Friedrich Jung, in his enclosure to the -expert opinion (_Pokorny 30, Pokorny Ex. 30_) comments as follows on -Karl Tauboeck’s affidavit: - - “Concerning the person— - - “Dr. Tauboeck is, according to his education, a natural - scientist with additional specialized studies in plant - chemistry. His medical education is confined to histology, - physiology, physiological chemistry, immunology, and - pharmacology. By virtue of his education, he calls himself ‘a - specialist in this field’, i. e., in the field of medicamental - sterilization. I should like to stress the fact that the title - ‘specialist’ in the field of sterilization presupposes - considerable medical and in particular gynecological knowledge, - which generally may be acquired only in a complete study of - medicine or a penetrating study over several years in the - _materia medica_. - - “The affidavit of Dr. Tauboeck in several places lacks that - critical attitude which is so necessary in scientific questions, - especially if they are discussed under oath. Dr. Tauboeck - states, for example, under point 5, that caladium seguinum was - used as a means of sterilization by the natives of Brazil. He - calls this assertion of the Indians, which has been reported in - literature, a fact. Under point 6 he calls the reports from - Brazil vague, only to assert literally several lines further on - that ‘the Brazilian natives have already reached castration - effects with an arrow wound, i. e., with an intramuscular - injection’. This assertion is not proved, and is therefore, in - my opinion, out of place in an affidavit. Furthermore Dr. - Tauboeck makes a large number of apodictic assertions, for which - he brings no direct proof whatever and which he tries to - strengthen with the help of absolutely impermissible - generalizations of the examples listed under points 7 a-d. Such - analogical conclusions are not permissible in a serious - scientific explanation, the more so since also the examples - brought by him are by no means unobjectionable. Moreover, Dr. - Tauboeck, under point 8, draws a conclusion from the experiments - by Madaus and Koch, which can only be based on an insufficient - knowledge of these experiments. He writes literally: ‘This - bitter substance was lacking in the plants of the firm Madaus, - the use of the pressed juice for feeding was accomplished there - without any irritation of the pharyngeal mucous membranes or the - tongue.’ According to the evidence on hand, Madaus and Koch - administered the pressed juice through probing, no doubt in - order to avoid this very irritation. - - “These findings may be further enlarged upon by attentive - reading of Dr. Tauboeck’s statement. I, therefore, do not - consider Dr. Tauboeck to be qualified as a scientific expert in - this question.” - - * * * * * - -_Conclusion of the Defense_: - -The affidavit of Karl Tauboeck produced at the end of the case-in-chief -cannot alter the fact that it is impossible to sterilize or castrate -human beings with caladium seguinum. - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - Pros. Ex. -Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page -NO-3963 528 Extracts from affidavit of Karl Wilhelm 710 - Friedrich Tauboeck, 18 June 1947, concerning - the development of, and experiments with - sterilization drugs. -NO-035 142 Letter from Pokorny to Himmler, October 1941, 713 - concerning a sterilization drug to be used - against Germany’s enemies. -NO-036 143 Letter from Himmler, 10 March 1942, to Pohl 714 - (initiated by Rudolf Brandt) concerning a - sterilization drug and suggesting further - research on criminals. -NO-038 147 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Pohl, June 1942, 715 - transmitting an inquiry by Himmler as to the - progress made with experiments for medical - sterilization. -NO-046a 148 Letter from Pohl to Himmler, 3 June 1942, 716 - concerning the development of a - sterilization drug by the firm of Dr. Madaus - and Co. -NO-046b 149 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Pohl, 11 June 717 - 1942, asking him on behalf of Himmler to set - up a large hothouse for the development of a - sterilization drug. -NO-039 153 Letter from Gund to Himmler, 24 August 1942, 717 - concerning research in medical sterilization - and development of sterilization drugs. -NO-203 161 Covering letter from Brack to Himmler, 28 719 - March 1941, with report on experiments - concerning sterilization and castration by - X-rays. -NO-205 163 Letter from Brack to Himmler, 23 June 1942, 721 - proposing sterilization of two to three - million Jews. -NO-206 164 Letter from Himmler (countersigned by Rudolf 722 - Brandt), 11 August 1942, addressed to Brack, - concerning Himmler’s interest in - sterilization experiments. -NO-208 166 Letter from Blankenburg to Himmler, 29 April 723 - 1944, regarding employment of Dr. Horst - Schumann on experiments concerning the - influence of X-rays on human genital glands - in connection with similar experiments - conducted at concentration camp Auschwitz. -NO-211 169 Letter from Professor Clauberg to Himmler, 30 724 - May 1942 (referring to a letter from Rudolf - Brandt), concerning the urgency of research - into biological propagation and - sterilization without operation, and draft - of a “Research Institute for Biological - Propagation.” -NO-216 170 Memorandum of Rudolf Brandt, July 1942, on a 728 - discussion between Himmler, Gebhardt, - Gluecks, and Clauberg concerning - sterilization experiments conducted on - Jewesses. -NO-213 171 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Clauberg, 10 July 729 - 1942, transmitting instructions of Himmler - to perform sterilizations on Jewesses at - concentration camp Ravensbrueck. -NO-212 173 Letter from Professor Clauberg to Himmler, 7 730 - June 1943, reporting on research in - connection with the sterilization of women. - - _Testimony_ - -Extract from the testimony of the defendant Viktor Brack 732 - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-3963 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 528 - - EXTRACTS FROM AFFIDAVIT OF KARL WILHELM FRIEDRICH TAUBOECK, 18 JUNE -1947, CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF, AND EXPERIMENTS WITH STERILIZATION - DRUGS - -I, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Tauboeck, swear, depose, and state: - -1. I was born on 21 September 1904 in Josefstadt, Czechoslovakia. I have -been an Austrian citizen all my life. From 1910 to 1915 I attended the -elementary school in Leitmeritz and Pilsen, Czechoslovakia. From 1915 to -1923 I attended the gymnasium (high school) in Pilsen (Czechoslovakia), -Ljubljana (Yugoslavia) and Klosterneuburg (Austria). In June 1923 I -graduated from the Klosterneuburg high school. From 1923 to 1925 I -studied natural science at the University of Vienna, Austria, -specializing in plant physiology and chemistry. In 1925 I studied at -Kiel (Germany), where I devoted myself mainly to problems of marine -biology and bacteriology. From 1926 to 1927 I again studied the -above-mentioned natural science subjects in Vienna (Austria). In -December 1927 I was made Doctor of Philosophy with special distinction. -My thesis dealt with a problem concerning vegetable chemistry—urea in -the plant world. - -2. From 1928 to 1929 I was assistant in the Institute of Plant -Physiology of the University of Vienna, Austria. In this capacity I had -to direct the practical studies of the students and was able to carry -out my own research in the field of vegetable chemistry. I also -continued my studies there in the medical faculty of that University, in -several medical subjects, especially in histology, physiology, -physiological chemistry, immunology, and pharmacology. These -above-mentioned studies made it possible for me to be able to carry out -independently tests on the efficacy of drugs in animal experiments. - -3. From 1930 to 1945 I was employed as a biochemist and botanist in the -biological laboratory of the I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. at -Ludwigshafen/Rhine. I specialized there in drugs with particular effects -on the animal and human organisms, respectively. Through this work I -invented various new remedies based on biology. In particular I studied -the question of animal poisons for many years and thus produced a new -remedy for rheumatism. I also worked on the question of the stimulant -from the sensitive plant (Mimosa pudica) and similar substances -effective in minimum quantities. During the war years I worked on -biochemical problems concerning agriculture and as a result of my work -produced an improved fertilizer. - -The I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. at Ludwigshafen at Rhine employed -several hundred natural scientists and technicians. Since 1937 I was the -senior specialist in vegetable chemistry there. - -4. In the fall of 1942, I was instructed by the director of my -laboratory, Dr. Mueller-Cunradi, to devote my time to research on the -effective substance from the plant caladium seguinum (Schweigrohr). At -the beginning of November 1942, I was sent to Dr. Schamberger of the -Research Institute Grunewald-Berlin for the purpose of obtaining further -information. The Research Institute Grunewald was a cover name for a -camouflaged SS office. The address was Grunewald-Berlin, -Delbrueckstrasse 6. There I was told that this plant was to be used for -sterilizing mental patients. In order to obtain further information -about the progress of experiments with caladium seguinum which had -already taken place, I had to visit the firm Madaus in Dresden-Radebeul, -together with Dr. Schamberger and another SS man. This firm had already -made animal experiments with this plant and published the results in a -medical journal in 1941. I was introduced to the firm Madaus as Dr. -Weiss, so that nobody should know that I was an employee of I. G. -Farben. The senior pharmacologist of the firm Madaus asked us: You must -be a commission from SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, to which the SS men -replied “yes”. The pharmacologist went on to tell us that a few days -previously Pohl himself had visited the firm Madaus together with -several other people and had mentioned the especial urgency of this -work. Furthermore, while visiting the firm Madaus, I checked all the -equipment and experiments in the course of one day. By careful -examination of sections of mice and rats and of the histological -preparations, I was convinced that the publications of the firm Madaus -were perfectly true. By this examination I, as a specialist in this -field, gained the conviction that sterilization with caladium seguinum -is no Utopia, but something which is quite within the bounds of -possibility. On the return journey from Dresden to Berlin, the SS men -revealed to me that this research was being carried out on the express -order of Reich Leader SS Himmler in order to suppress births among the -eastern nations. After this fact had been revealed to me I was sworn to -secrecy. I was furthermore informed at the Research Institute -Grunewald-Berlin that the first preparations were to be supplied as soon -as possible, as the Reich Leader SS had ordered the testing of the new -method on inmates of concentration camps to take place at once. - -5. In order to point out the effectiveness and practical possibility of -using caladium seguinum as a sterilization drug, I would like first of -all to go into the subject of the history of this plant. Before doing -so, however, I would like to add that caladium seguinum is not -considered a sterilization drug in the ordinary sense of the word, but a -castration drug. This is evident from the fact that the experiments -carried out by the firm Madaus have clearly shown that a destruction of -the sexual glands of the experimental animals occurred which is -equivalent to the surgical removal of such glands. Caladium seguinum is -a plant which comes from Brazil. As I know from the literature and the -publications made by the firm Madaus, this plant has already been used -by the Brazilian natives as a means of sterilization of their enemies. -It was administered to the enemies either in food or in arrow wounds. By -this method of injection by arrows, only relatively small portions of -poison gained from caladium seguinum could have been administered, as -the wound produced by arrows may be compared with a large intramuscular -injection. From this fact, as learned from literature, results the -conclusion that this poison, if obtained by the correct process, is -effective even in very small doses. This drug is described in literature -as secret, which shows that the enemy did not know that he was being -sterilized. - -6. Inspired by this experience of the Brazilian natives, the firm Madaus -carried out their experiments on animals. The results obtained by the -firm Madaus which I have seen with my own eyes confirm the effectiveness -of caladium seguinum as a means of sterilization for human beings. It -was possible to doubt whether the caladium seguinum was actually -effective according to the first rather vague reports coming from Brazil -before the experiments of the firm Madaus had been carried out. The -experiments of Madaus, however, have eliminated all doubts in this -direction. - - * * * * * - -11. As a result of all examples and explanations mentioned, I am of the -opinion that mass production of a castrating preparation from caladium -seguinum in Germany or in the German occupied countries is no dream, but -could easily have been put into practice. Another proof of the -harmfulness of the caladium poison is the fact that the Madaus -examinations confirmed beyond doubt the castrative effect of caladium -despite all the shortcomings already described. All this made me realize -at once the criminal character of such research and for this reason did -not carry it out as far as my specific order was concerned. The SS, -however, took a great interest in this matter. I received my orders as -an employee of the I. G. Farbenindustrie from the Chief of the Security -Police, first through the camouflaged office of the Research Institute -Grunewald-Berlin and later direct. I know, however, that the firm Madaus -placed their orders through SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl separately and I -am not acquainted with the development of this matter. - -I have read the above statement consisting of seven pages, in German, -and declare it to be the whole truth to my best knowledge and belief. I -was given an opportunity of making alterations and amendments in the -above statement. I have made this statement of my own free will, under -no duress, without promise of reward. - -Nuernberg, 18 June 1947. [Signature] DR. KARL TAUBOECK - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-035 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 142 - -LETTER FROM POKORNY TO HIMMLER, OCTOBER 1941, CONCERNING A STERILIZATION - DRUG TO BE USED AGAINST GERMANY’S ENEMIES - -To the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German - Folkdom, -SS H. Himmler, Chief of Police, -Berlin. - -I beg you to turn your attention to the following arguments. I have -requested Professor Hoehn to forward this letter to you. I have chosen -this direct way to you in order to avoid the slower process through -channels and the possibility of an indiscretion in regard to the -eventually enormous importance of the ideas presented. - -Led by the idea that the enemy must not only be conquered but destroyed, -I feel obliged to present to you, as the Reich Commissioner for the -Consolidation of German Folkdom, the following: - -Dr. Madaus published the result of his research on a _medicinal -sterilization_ (both articles are enclosed). Reading these articles, the -immense importance of this drug in the present fight of our people -occurred to me. _If, on the basis of this research, it were possible to -produce a drug which, after a relatively short time, effects an -imperceptible sterilization on human beings, then we would have a new -powerful weapon at our disposal._ The thought alone that the 3 million -Bolsheviks, at present German prisoners, could be sterilized so that -they could be used as laborers but be prevented from reproduction, opens -the most far-reaching perspectives. - -Madaus found that the sap of the Schweigrohr (caladium seguinum) when -taken by mouth or given as injection to male and also to female animals, -after a certain time, produces permanent sterility. The illustrations -accompanying the scientific article are convincing. - -If my ideas meet your approval, the following course should be taken: - -1. Dr. Madaus must not publish any more such articles. (The enemy -listens!) - -2. Multiplying the plant. (Easily cultivated in greenhouses!) - -[Written notation] Dachau - -3. Immediate research on human beings (criminals!) in order to determine -the dose and length of the treatment. - -4. Quick research of the constitutional formula of the effective -chemical substance in order to - -5. Produce it synthetically if possible. - -As German physician and chief physician of the reserves of the German -Wehrmacht, retired [d. R. a. D.], I undertake to keep secret the purpose -as suggested by me in this letter. - - [stamp] Heil Hitler! - [Signed] DR. POKORNY - Specialist for skin and venereal diseases, M. U. - Dr. -Ad. Pokorny -Komotau -Graben 33 -Komotau, October 1941 - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-036 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 143 - -LETTER FROM HIMMLER, 10 MARCH 1942, TO POHL (INITIALED BY RUDOLF BRANDT) - CONCERNING A STERILIZATION DRUG AND SUGGESTING FURTHER RESEARCH ON - CRIMINALS - -The Reich Leader SS -Journal No. 752/5, RF/H. - - Fuehrer Headquarters, 10 March 1942 - 2 W 1.5. - -Dear Pohl, - -I read Dr. Pokorny’s very interesting memorandum and Dr. Madaus’ -publications on medicinal sterilization. I would ask you to get in touch -with Dr. Madaus and to inform him, on my behalf, that he should not -publish anything else on these questions of medicinal sterilization, and -offer him possibilities of doing research, in cooperation with the Reich -Physician SS, on criminals who would have to be sterilized in any case. - -The intended plan of research is, however, to be submitted to me by the -office engaged on the subject. - - Heil Hitler! - Yours, - [Signed] H. HIMMLER - -A copy is forwarded to the Reich Physician SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. -Grawitz with request to take cognizance. - - By Order: - [Initial] BR. [BRANDT] - SS Sturmbannfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-038 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 147 - -LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO POHL, JUNE 1942, TRANSMITTING AN INQUIRY BY - HIMMLER AS TO THE PROGRESS MADE WITH EXPERIMENTS FOR MEDICAL - STERILIZATION - -The Reich Leader SS -Personal Staff -Journal No. AR/752/5, Bra/Bn. - - Fuehrer Headquarters, June 1942 - Top Secret - -SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl -Berlin - -Dear Obergruppenfuehrer, - -On 10 March 1942, the Reich Leader SS sent you a memorandum written by -Dr. Pokorny and the publication of Dr. Madaus on medicinal -sterilization. In cooperation with the Reich Physician SS, experiments -were to be made accordingly. - -The Reich Leader SS inquired today as to how things were progressing. I -would appreciate it if I might have some information soon. - - Heil Hitler - Yours, - [Signed] R. BRANDT - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-046a - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 148 - -LETTER FROM POHL TO HIMMLER, 3 JUNE 1942, CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF - A STERILIZATION DRUG BY THE FIRM OF DR. MADAUS AND CO. - -Chief of SS, Economics and Administrative Main Office -Ch. Po/Ha - - Berlin, 3 June 1942 - -Subject: Sterilization by means of drugs. -Re: Your letter of 3 October 1942. Journal No. AR. 752/52, RF/H - -To the Reich Leader SS -Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 8 - -Dear Reich Leader: - -In reference to the above matter, I had a conversation today with E. -Koch, Ph. D. and M. D., director of the Biological Institute of Dr. -Madaus and Co., at Dresden-Radebeul. - -I advised him of your desire to have publications on this subject -discontinued for the time being. Dr. Koch will comply with your request. - -Furthermore, experiments have reached a dead point because the caladium -seguinum grows only in North America and during the war cannot be -imported in adequate quantities. Dr. Koch’s attempts to grow this plant -from seed cultivated in hothouses have been successful, it is true; but -the process is very slow and the yield is not sufficient to permit -carrying on experiments on a large scale. - -Dr. Koch is hopeful that this will be remedied if it is possible for us -to obtain permission for him to build a larger hothouse. I promised him -this. - -For the time being this is the first and only practical step to promote -the project. - -I shall continue reports periodically. - - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] POHL - SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-046b - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 149 - -LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO POHL, 11 JUNE 1942, ASKING HIM ON BEHALF OF - HIMMLER TO SET UP A LARGE HOTHOUSE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A - STERILIZATION DRUG - -The Reich Leader SS -Personal Staff, Diary No. 1230/42, Bra/Bu - Fuehrer’s Headquarters, 11 June 1942 -Re: Medical sterilization. -To SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl -Berlin - -Dear Obergruppenfuehrer, - -I have informed the Reich Leader SS of your letter of 3 June 1942. He -asks you to see to it without fail that a large hothouse is set up as -soon as possible for Dr. Koch. He considers the experiments extremely -important. - -The Reich Leader SS asks you to continue to send in further reports. - - Heil Hitler - [Signed] B. - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-039 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 153 - - LETTER FROM GUND TO HIMMLER, 24 AUGUST 1942, CONCERNING RESEARCH IN - MEDICAL STERILIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF STERILIZATION DRUGS - - Secret -The Deputy Gauleiter of Lower Danube [Lower Austria] - - Vienna, 9, Wasagasse 10, 24 August 1942 - Ge/Schd—310/42 g - -To: The Reich Leader SS Pg. Heinrich Himmler -Berlin SW 1, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 8 -Sir, - -At the orders of Gauleiter Dr. Jury, his staff have hitherto busied -themselves especially with the problems of population, racial policy, -and antisocial elements. Since the prevention of reproduction by the -congenitally unfit and racially inferior belongs to the duties of our -National Socialist racial and demographic policy, the present Director -of the District Office for Racial Policy, Gauhauptstellenleiter Dr. -Fehringer, has examined the question of sterilization and found that the -methods so far available, castration and sterilization, are not -sufficient in themselves to meet expectations. Consequently, the obvious -question occurred to him whether impotence and sterility could not be -produced in both men and women by the administration of medicine or -injections. So he came to the studies of the Biological Institute of Dr. -Madaus, in Dresden-Radebeul, on animal experiments for medical -sterilization, which became accessible to him through the Madaus Annual -Report, IVth year, 1940, and are of the greatest interest for our -demographic policy. Madaus and Koch found that caladium sequinum used in -homeopathic doses, that is, administered in infinitesimal quantities, -favorably affects impotence, sterility, and frigidity (sexual -indifference), so that clinical and medical research should not proceed -without regard to this fact. It was established by an extensive series -of experiments on rats, rabbits, and dogs that, as the result of the -administration or injection of caladium extract, male animals became -impotent and females barren, and the differences in effect of the -various methods of applying the drug could be seen. From the animal -experiments, it seems that a permanent sterility is liable to result in -male animals and a more temporary one in females. - -It is clear that these observations could be of tremendous importance if -alterations of potency or fecundity could also be successfully brought -about in human beings by the administration of a caladium extract. -Research on human beings themselves would, of course, be necessary for -this. The director of my race policy office points out that the -necessary research and human experiments could be undertaken by an -appropriately selected medical staff, basing their work on the Madaus -animal experiments in cooperation with the pharmacological institute of -the Faculty of Medicine of Vienna, on the persons of the inmates of the -gypsy camp of Lackenbach in Lower Danube. - -It is quite clear that such research must be handled as a nationally -important secret matter of the most dangerous character, because enemy -propaganda could work tremendous harm all over the world by the -knowledge of such research, should it come by such knowledge. - -Since these considerations are only a theory, the fundamental accuracy -of which has already been established by animal experiments and the -possibility of the application of which to human beings is highly -probable, a mere indication only can be given of the prospects of the -possibility of the sterilization of practically unlimited numbers of -people in the shortest time and in the simplest way conceivable. - -In this connection, I may perhaps point out that it would surely be -worth while to study the old cults and the knowledge of their priests -concerning the promotion and prevention of human potency and fecundity. -Primitive, primeval populations which are close to nature had, and still -have, a very extensive knowledge of this subject without these things -being known to science. It is known, for instance, that the natives of -South America attempted to destroy the potency of their enemies by -administering caladium seguinum to them. - -I should be particularly grateful to you if you would give me your -opinion in this respect when the occasion arises, or even order a -concrete working plan to be submitted to you. Gauleiter Dr. Jury would -personally have approached you with this plan were he not at present -away on a vacation. - - Heil Hitler! - Yours faithfully, - [Signed] K. GUND - SS Oberfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-203 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 161 - - COVERING LETTER FROM BRACK TO HIMMLER, 28 MARCH 1941, WITH REPORT ON - EXPERIMENTS CONCERNING STERILIZATION AND CASTRATION BY X-RAYS - -Viktor Brack -Oberdienstleiter - - Berlin, 28 March 1941 - -To the Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police -Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8 -H. H. [Handwritten initials] - - Top Secret - - [Handwritten]: 1 read - 2+ - 5 May 41 - -Dear Reich Leader: - -Enclosed herewith for your information is the result of the -investigations into the possibility of sterilization or castration, -respectively, by means of X-rays. I request your instructions as to what -further theoretical or practical steps, if any, are to be taken in this -matter. - - Heil Hitler! - [SIGNED] BRACK -Enclosure - -The experiments in this field are concluded. The following result can be -considered as established and adequately based on scientific research: - -If any persons are to be sterilized permanently, this result can only be -attained by applying X-rays in a dosage high enough to produce -castration with all its consequences, since high X-ray dosages destroy -the internal secretion of the ovary, or of the testicles, respectively. -Lower dosages would only temporarily paralyze the procreative capacity. -The consequences in question are for example the disappearance of -menstruation, climacteric phenomena, changes in capillary growth, -modification of metabolism, etc. In any case, attention must be drawn to -these disadvantages. - -The actual dosage can be given in various ways, and the irradiation can -take place quite imperceptibly. The necessary local dosage for men is -500-600 r, for women 300-350 r. In general, an irradiation period of 2 -minutes for men, 3 minutes for women, with the highest voltage, a thin -filter and at a short distance, ought to be sufficient. There is, -however, a disadvantage that has to be put up with: as it is impossible -unnoticeably to cover the rest of the body with lead, the other tissues -of the body will be injured, and radiologic malaise, the so-called -“Roentgenkater”, will ensue. If the X-ray intensity is too high, those -parts of the skin which the rays have reached will exhibit symptoms of -burns—varying in severity in individual cases—in the course of the -following days or weeks. - -One practical way of proceeding would be, for instance, to let the -persons to be treated approach a counter, where they could be asked to -answer some questions or to fill in forms, which would take them 2 or 3 -minutes. The official sitting behind the counter could operate the -installation in such a way as to turn a switch which would activate the -two valves simultaneously (since the irradiation has to operate from -both sides). With a two-valve installation about 150-200 persons could -then be sterilized per day, and therefore, with 20 such installations as -many as 3,000-4,000 persons per day. In my estimation a larger daily -number could not in any case be sent away for this purpose. As to the -expenses for such a two-valve system, I can only give a rough estimate -of approximately 20,000-30,000 RM. Additionally, however, there would be -the cost of the construction of a new building, because adequately -extensive protective installations would have to be provided for the -officials on duty. - -In summary, it may be said that, having regard to the present state of -radiological technique and research, mass sterilization by means of -X-rays can be carried out without difficulty. However, it seems to be -impossible to do this in such a way that the persons concerned do not -sooner or later realize with certainty that they have been sterilized or -castrated by X-rays. - - [Signed] BRACK - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-205 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 163 - - LETTER FROM BRACK TO HIMMLER, 23 JUNE 1942, PROPOSING STERILIZATION OF - TWO TO THREE MILLION JEWS - -Viktor Brack -SS Oberfuehrer - - Berlin, W 8, Voss-Strasse 4, 23 June 1942 - [Initial] HH - - Top Secret - -To the Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police -Heinrich Himmler, -Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8 - -Dear Reich Leader, - -On the instructions of Reich Leader [Reichsleiter] Bouhler I placed some -of my men—already some time ago—at the disposal of Brigadefuehrer -Globocnik to execute his special mission. On his renewed request I have -now transferred additional personnel. On this occasion Brigadefuehrer -Globocnik stated his opinion that the whole Jewish action should be -completed as quickly as possible so that one would not get caught in the -middle of it one day if some difficulties should make a stoppage of the -action necessary. You, yourself, Reich Leader, have already expressed -your view, that work should progress quickly for reasons of camouflage -alone. Both points which in principle arrive at the same result are more -than justified as far as my own experience goes; nevertheless would you -kindly allow me to submit the following argument: - -Among 10 millions of Jews in Europe there are, I figure, at least 2-3 -millions of men and women who are fit enough to work. Considering the -extraordinary difficulties the labor problem presents us with, I hold -the view that those 2-3 millions should be specially selected and -preserved. This can, however, only be done if at the same time they are -rendered incapable to propagate. About a year ago I reported to you that -agents of mine had completed the experiments necessary for this purpose. -I would like to recall these facts once more. Sterilization, as normally -performed on persons with hereditary diseases, is here out of the -question, because it takes too long and is too expensive. Castration by -X-ray however is not only relatively cheap, but can also be performed on -many thousands in the shortest time. I think, that at this time it is -already irrelevant whether the people in question become aware of having -been castrated after some weeks or months once they feel the effects. - -Should you, Reich Fuehrer, decide to choose this way in the interest of -the preservation of labor, then Reichsleiter Bouhler would be prepared -to place all physicians and other personnel needed for this work at your -disposal. Likewise he requested me to inform you that then I would have -to order the apparatus so urgently needed with the greatest speed. - - Heil Hitler! - Yours, - [Signed] VIKTOR BRACK - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-206 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 164 - - LETTER FROM HIMMLER (COUNTERSIGNED BY RUDOLF BRANDT), 11 AUGUST 1942, - ADDRESSED TO BRACK, CONCERNING HIMMLER’S INTEREST IN STERILIZATION - EXPERIMENTS - -The Reich Leader SS -1314/42 [Handwritten] - - XIa/126 [Handwritten] - 11 August 1942 - Figure 11—[Handwritten] -SS Senior Col. (SS Oberfuehrer) Brack Field Headquarters -Berlin W 8 Voss-Strasse 4 - Top Secret - 4 copies - 4th copy -Dear Brack: - -It is only today that I have the opportunity of acknowledging the -receipt of your letter of 23 June. I am positively interested in seeing -that sterilization by X-rays is tried out at least once in one camp in a -series of experiments. - -I will be very much obliged to Reichsleiter Bouhler if, to begin with, -he would place the expert physicians for the series of experiments at -our disposal. - -I will mail a copy of this letter to the Reich Physician SS and to the -competent Chief of the Main Office for concentration camps. - - Heil Hitler! - Yours, - [Signed] H. HIMMLER - -SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl -SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz - For information. - By order [Handwritten] BR. - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer -[Stamp] 11 August 1942 - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-208 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 166 - -LETTER FROM BLANKENBURG TO HIMMLER, 29 APRIL 1944, REGARDING EMPLOYMENT -OF DR. HORST SCHUMANN ON EXPERIMENTS CONCERNING THE INFLUENCE OF X-RAYS -ON HUMAN GENITAL GLANDS IN CONNECTION WITH SIMILAR EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED - AT CONCENTRATION CAMP AUSCHWITZ - -Chancellery of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP -File No: IIa/Kt. - - Berlin W 8, Vosstrasse 4, 29 April 1944 - Telephone No.: local 120054 - Long distance 126621 - - Top Secret - -To the Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police, Heinrich Himmler - -Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 9 -Dear Reich Leader! - -By order of Reich Leader (Reichsleiter) Bouhler I submit to you as an -enclosure a work of Dr. Horst Schumann on the influence of X-rays on -human genital glands. - -Previously you have asked Senior Colonel [Oberfuehrer] Brack to perform -this work, and you supported it by providing the adequate material in -the concentration camp Auschwitz. I point especially to the 2d part of -this work, which shows that by those means a castration of males is -almost impossible or requires an effort which does not pay. As I have -convinced myself, operative castration requires not more than 6 to 7 -minutes, and therefore can be performed more reliably and quicker than -castration by X-rays. - -Soon I shall be able to submit a continuation of this work to you. - - Heil Hitler! - [Handwritten] Your devoted, - [Signed] BLANKENBURG - -Enclosure - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-211 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 169 - - LETTER FROM PROFESSOR CLAUBERG TO HIMMLER, 30 MAY 1942 (REFERRING TO A - LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT), CONCERNING THE URGENCY OF RESEARCH INTO -BIOLOGICAL PROPAGATION AND STERILIZATION WITHOUT OPERATION, AND DRAFT OF - A “RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL PROPAGATION” - -Professor C. Clauberg, M. D. Chief Physician of the Gynecological -Clinics of the Miners’ (Knappschaft) Hospital and of the St. Hedwig -Hospital. - - Koenigshuette, Upper Silesia, 30 May 1942 - Telephone 409-31 - [Handwritten] - Wednesday 8 July - -To the Reich Leader SS Heinrich Himmler Through SS Obergruppenfuehrer -and General of the Police Schmauser - - [Handwritten] - discussed H. H. [Heinrich Himmler] - -Dear Reich Leader! - -In answer to my letter of 5 June 1941 “concerning the Research Institute -for Biological Propagation” I received at that time by return mail the -answer of your personal adjutant, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Brandt, dated 19 -June 1941 saying that you, Reich Leader, would come back to my expose as -soon as possible. Without any doubt the far more important events of the -war which happened shortly afterwards prevented this. - -If I may remind you briefly, the continuation of my work had been -rendered impossible because of the problem of carrying out the -procurement of female concentration camp inmates. On the occasion of a -scientific discussion with the Stabsfuehrer of your office here, SS -Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Arlt, I also happened to speak about my -research activities in the field of biological propagation. Dr. Arlt -told me then that the one person in Germany today who would be -particularly interested in these matters and who would be able to help -me would be you, most honorable Reich Leader. In his capacity as a -member of the SS and Stabsfuehrer of your office here, I then told him -briefly that I had already submitted this matter to you. - -After this discussion, I most obediently take the liberty of asking you -to make it possible for me to carry out these tasks here in Upper -Silesia. - -In order to explain what would be necessary at the moment—that is, at -least for the time being—the two most urgent questions and fundamental -problems should be stated briefly once more. - -A. In the question of the positive population policy, the eventual or -most probable importance of agriculture for the female capacity for -propagation demands clarification. This is to be thoroughly probed and -tested by experiments on animals, namely, on the experimental animal -which is proverbially most fertile and at the same time variable in its -fertility—the rabbit. The question is whether good general nutrition -with food obtained through intensive farming can reduce fertility, and -if this should be the case, what factor (positive or negative) is -responsible. - -B. In the question of the negative population policy the situation now -is such that from animal experiments (in which I have demonstrated the -possibility of sterilization without operation) we must proceed to the -first experiments on human beings. - -For that purpose the following is necessary: - -With ref. to A. _Problem of fertility and agriculture._ - -1. Land—that is, as much “untouched”, “wild” or hitherto “badly” farmed -land as possible. For the first animal experiments to be conducted at -least 10 Morgen [Morgen = 2/3 of an acre] would be needed. - -2. Personnel to till the land. - -3. Animal material—that is, a few hundred female rabbits and the -corresponding number of males necessary. - -4. Animal hutches and shelters. - -5. Persons to attend and guard the animals. - -With ref. to B. _Sterilization without operation._ - -1. Occasional special billeting for 5 to 10 women (single rooms or rooms -for two persons) corresponding to the conditions of sick rooms. - -2. Special X-ray apparatus with installation and accessories. - -3. Smaller outfit of instruments and material. - -Reich Leader! Without wishing to anticipate your decision, I am taking -the liberty of proposing that the experiments necessary for A and B be -carried out at the Auschwitz concentration camp and that the facilities -there be used. As I already told you in the course of our conversation, -I would be very much pleased to work under you as head of an -experimental institute, directed exclusively by you. - -I believe that in view of the procurement of the land, the necessary -animals, the attending personnel, and the human material to be provided, -an annex to your camp in Upper Silesia would offer the best facilities. -Cash would be needed only for the procurement of— - -With ref. to A. - -1. _Animal material._ - -2. _Material for the animals’ stables and shelters._ - -3. _A conscientious working person to attend them._ - -With ref. to B. - -4. _Special accommodations for 5 to 10 female camp inmates undergoing -experiments._ - -5. _Eventually a special X-ray installation._ - -6. _Smaller outfit of instruments and material._ - -Reich Leader! The explanations and dispositions made here are related to -the fact that the most necessary and most urgent means for solution of -this problem should at once be created and set in motion. My suggestions -are absolutely adapted to the present times and attempt to meet the -circumstances. As one problem arises from the other or—I should rather -say—as many further problems will arise, the ideal pattern of such a -“Research Institution of the Reich Leader SS for Biological Propagation” -the establishment of which is to be considered, would present itself as -an entity, on the one hand far greater in scope, and on the other hand -more concentrated and closely knit in shape. A short sketch is enclosed -as a suggestion for that purpose. This suggestion is to demonstrate the -possibility of realization of all the thoughts discussed and submitted -to you. - - Heil Hitler! - Yours most obediently, - [Signed] PROF. CLAUBERG. - - * * * * * - - Draft of a “Research Institute for Biological Propagation” - -The center from which all ideas start, all problems are raised and their -execution directed, and finally turned over into practical use, is and -remains the clinic. It must be an obstetric clinic at the same time. For -the problems (which are mostly of a hormonal nature) do not merely -extend into practical gynecology and obstetrics but also reach deeply -into them and remain most closely connected with pregnancy and -obstetrics as well. These problems are just as unlimited and therefore -must necessarily be solved step by step, as they are proving to be -successful for obstetrics also in the future. - -In this clinic the possibility must be provided— - -_a._ for most intensive treatment of women hitherto sterile but desirous -of bearing children and for applying and testing of newly gained -experiences in cases hitherto seemingly hopeless. - -_b._ to evaluate the method of sterilization without operation -(bloodless sterilization) on women unworthy of propagation and to use -this method continually after it is finally proved efficient. - -Attached to this clinic there is to be— - -_c._ a laboratory for extensive animal experiments, which will always -serve as a basis for further research. - -There should also be incorporated in this research station— - -_d._ an experimental farm as a basis for the solution of the questions -of “agriculture and fertility,” that is— - -1. far reaching nutrition experiments on animals, and - -2. far reaching nutrition experiments on human beings (female camp -inmates). - -Sketch enclosed. - -[Handwritten] 30 May 1942. - - CLAUBERG - “_Research Institute for Biological Propagation_” - -_Experimental Farm_— - - _a._ For far reaching nutrition experiments on the animal. - - Laboratory for further experimental research on animals. - - _b._ For far reaching nutrition experiments on human beings. - (Special production of food for female camp inmates.) - - _Clinic for gynecology and obstetrics_ - -_Clinical and Polyclinical Department_— - - _a._ Treatment of sterile women desired to propagate. - - _b._ Further clinical research on cases of sterility hitherto - seemingly hopeless. - -_Clinical department_— - - For sterilization without operation (bloodless sterilization) on - women (women unworthy of propagation or women whose propagation - is not desirable—at first to test method without operation, - later for current use). - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-216 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 170 - -MEMORANDUM OF RUDOLF BRANDT, JULY 1942, ON A DISCUSSION BETWEEN HIMMLER, - GEBHARDT, GLUECKS, AND CLAUBERG CONCERNING STERILIZATION EXPERIMENTS - CONDUCTED ON JEWESSES - - Fuehrer Headquarters, July 1942 - Top Secret - 1 copy - -On 7 July 1942 a discussion took place between the Reich Leader SS, SS -Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt, SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, and SS -Brigadefuehrer Clauberg, Koenigshuette. The topic of the discussion was -the sterilization of Jewesses. The Reich Leader SS has promised SS -Brigadefuehrer Professor Clauberg that Auschwitz concentration camp will -be at his disposal for his experiments on human beings and animals. By -means of some fundamental experiments, a method should be found which -would lead to sterilization of persons without their knowledge. The -Reich Leader SS wanted to get another report as soon as the result of -these experiments was known, so that the sterilization of Jewesses could -then be carried out in actuality. - -It should also be examined, preferably in cooperation with Professor Dr. -Hohlfelder, an X-ray specialist in Germany, what way sterilization of -men could be achieved by X-ray treatment. - -The Reich Leader SS called the special attention of all gentlemen -present to the fact that the matter involved was most secret and should -be discussed only with the officers in charge and that the persons -present at the experiments or discussions had to pledge secrecy. - - [Signed] BRANDT - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-213 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 171 - - LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO CLAUBERG, 10 JULY 1942, TRANSMITTING - INSTRUCTIONS OF HIMMLER TO PERFORM STERILIZATIONS ON JEWESSES AT - CONCENTRATION CAMP RAVENSBRUECK - -Reich Leader SS Personal Staff -Journal Number 1266/42, Bra/Dr. - - [Handwritten] - Returned 31 October 1942 by Pol. Administration K. - Fuehrer Headquarters, 10 July 1942 - Top Secret - [Handwritten] - Original handed to G. - 6 copies—6th copy - -1. Professor Clauberg -Koenigshuette. - - [Handwritten] - W 1-10 - 1-5-43 - -Dear Professor! - -Today the Reich Leader SS charged me with transmitting to you his wish -that you go to Ravensbrueck after you have had another talk with SS -Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and the camp physician of the women’s -concentration camp Ravensbrueck, in order to perform the sterilization -of Jewesses according to your method. - -Before you start your job, the Reich Leader SS would be interested to -learn from you how long it would take to sterilize a thousand Jewesses. -The Jewesses themselves should not know anything about it. As the Reich -Leader SS understands it, you could give the appropriate injections -during a general examination. - -Thorough experiments should be conducted to investigate the effect of -the sterilization largely in a way that you find out after a certain -time, which you would have to fix, perhaps by X-rays, what kind of -changes have taken place. In some cases a practical experiment might be -arranged by locking up a Jewess and a Jew together for a certain period -and then seeing what results are achieved. - -I ask you to let me know your opinion about my letter for the -information of the Reich Leader SS. - - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] BRANDT - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - -2. To SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, Berlin. -[Handwritten] delivered to Boemer - -Please acknowledge. SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Koegel also received a copy -for the information of the camp physician. Moreover the Reich Physician -SS and the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) received a copy. - - [Signed] BRANDT - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - -3. To SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz, Reich Physician SS. - -Please acknowledge. - - [Signed] BRANDT - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - -4. To SS. Obersturmbannfuehrer Koegel, WVHA. - -Please acknowledge and inform the camp physician. - - [Signed] BRANDT - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - -5. To the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA), Berlin. - -SS Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther, IV B 4 (Department for Jews). - - [Handwritten] SS GRUF. MUELLER - -Please acknowledge. - - [Initialed] BR. - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-212 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 173 - - LETTER FROM PROFESSOR CLAUBERG TO HIMMLER, 7 JUNE 1943, REPORTING ON - RESEARCH IN CONNECTION WITH THE STERILIZATION OF WOMEN - -Professor Dr. C. Clauberg, - -Chief Physician of the Clinics for Women of the Miners’ (Knappschaft) -Hospital and the St. Hedwig Hospital - - Koenigshuette O. S., 7 June 1943 - Telephone: 409-31 - - Secret - -To the Reich Leader SS -Heinrich Himmler -Berlin -Dear Reich Leader, - -Today I am fulfilling my obligation to report to you from time to time -about the state of my research work. In doing this I am, as before, -adhering to the procedure to report only if the matter is essential. The -fact that, after my most recent interview in July 1942, I could not do -so before today is due to temporary difficulties against which I myself -was powerless and with which I could not bother you, Reich Leader. I -mention as an example that only since February 1943 am I in possession -of an X-ray installation, which is of great value to my special -research. In spite of the short period of actually only 4 months, it is -already today possible to report to you the following: - -_The method I contrived to achieve the sterilization of the female -organism without operation is as good as perfected. It can be performed -by a single injection made through the entrance of the uterus in the -course of the customary gynecological examination known to every -physician._—If I say that the method is “as good as perfected,” this -means: - -1. Still to be worked out are only minor improvements of the method. - -2. Already today it could be put to practical use in the course of our -_regular_ eugenic sterilization and could thus replace the operation. - -As to the question which you, Reich Leader, asked me almost one year -ago, i. e., how much time would probably be required to sterilize 1,000 -women by using this method. Today I can answer you with regard to the -future as follows: - -If my researches continue to have the same results as up to now—and -there is no reason to doubt that—then the moment is not far off when I -can say: - - “_One_ adequately trained physician in _one_ adequately equipped - place, with perhaps 10 assistants (the number of assistants in - conformity with the speed desired) _will most likely be able to - deal with several hundred, if not even 1,000 per day_.” - -Please permit me to postpone my report about the other part of my -researches (positive population policy) because it will take some time -until something decisive can be said in this field. - -Reich Leader! The main reason for my reporting to you today, shortly -before the possibility of even more final results, is the following: - -I know that the settlement of the last part of this particular complex -of problems—in contrast to the external forces which determined the -progress so far—depends _now_ almost entirely on me. In this -connection, several minor but nevertheless fundamental changes would be -necessary which only you, my dear Reich Leader, can personally direct -and order. I had hoped that I would be able to give you personally a -short description of these requirements in the event of a visit to Upper -Silesia. Since I have not had this opportunity, I am asking you for your -decision today. - -In addition I should like to make a further request. It was SS -Brigadefuehrer _Dr. Blumenreuter_ who finally managed to get me the one -suitable X-ray installation. I am in urgent need of another installation -of the same kind, and he informed me in February that he had another one -stored in Berlin. He was ready to deliver it to me if I would secure -your approval. - -May I ask you, Reich Leader, for this approval? - - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] CLAUBERG - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENDANT VIKTOR BRACK[84] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. FROESCHMANN: What plans are you talking about? - -DEFENDANT BRACK: The plans to exterminate the Jews which I told you -about before. Having known them and having been in the Party Chancellery -in the course of this conversation when I told Himmler that Grafeneck -was to be abandoned, Himmler also told me of communications he had -received from Poland, according to which the Jews there were using the -temporary impotence of the Polish government to strengthen their own -position and Himmler said something had to be done about this. He said -something had to be undertaken to stop this because through the mixing -of blood in the Polish Jews with that of the Jews from Western Europe a -much greater danger for Germany was arising than even before the war, -and he said it was his intention to sterilize the Jews according to -reliable methods, according to a procedure which would permit mass -sterilization. Operative sterilization was out of the question for one -thing because you couldn’t do that without leaving some scar. Then he -brought up the question, could not this be done with X-ray treatment? -However, I didn’t know about this for sure, and in fact nobody knew -about it, and especially didn’t know whether the person in question -could be treated without noticing something. Himmler then said that -Bouhler had gathered together so many scientists and doctors in the -Euthanasia Program, consequently I should try to find out from him what -he could tell me about sterilization, and tell him to report to me -again. - -Q. Well, what was the effect of this communication from Himmler on you? - -A. This made a great impression on me. I believed that Heydrich could -really have been the instigator of all of this. - -In my interrogation I told the interrogator that I regarded such a plan -to exterminate the Jews as unworthy of Germany and its leaders. From -what I knew of Himmler it would never have occurred to me that such a -destructive idea could have originated in his mind. Be that, however, as -it may, whether the idea originated with Heydrich or Bormann, my -attitude was opposed to this; and I felt that I was under the obligation -to do anything I could to prevent this. If I had raised the least -objection to it openly, I would have aroused great suspicion of myself -and would have aroused a false reaction in Himmler. Therefore, I had to -make the best of a bad job and had to pretend that I agreed with -Himmler. I pretended to be willing to clarify the question of mass -sterilization through X-ray methods. Many years ago I had been subjected -to X-ray treatment for quite a period of time and had discussed with the -doctor the effect of X-rays on the human body. Now I remembered from -those discussions that the effect of X-rays on the sexual organs is only -of slight importance and not lasting. Moreover, I knew that one of my -associates was personally acquainted with an X-ray specialist and he -told me that this specialist was conducting experiments on the effects -of X-rays on the fertility of animals. However, there seemed to be no -result. - -Q. Mr. President, I present an affidavit of 25 February 1947, by Dr. -Martin Zeller, a specialist, born 3 December 1880, living in Munich, -signed by him on this same date and certified by myself. (_Brack 26, -Brack Ex. 31._) This affidavit contributes to the understanding of this -matter now under discussion and I quote: - - “I remember distinctly that 10 to 15 years ago I spoke to Viktor - Brack about X-ray injuries. Brack was worried that he might - develop an X-ray injury; at that time his knee had been X-rayed. - When some time afterwards he had rough hands he thought that - might be an X-ray burn. I explained to him that no injuries - could result from our X-ray examinations since the quantities of - radiation used for diagnosis were small and besides, the more - distant parts of the body (that is, in the case of a picture of - the knee being taken, the hands and genitals) were not in the - danger zone under modern technical conditions. - - “I also made the remark that even an intentional sterilization - by X-ray treatment would, especially in the case of young - persons, be difficult to achieve and even then only with a - strong dose of prolonged radiation.” - -And then in paragraph 2 the witness continues: - - “It is quite possible that Brack in this way developed the views - he brought forward, i. e., that the effect of X-rays upon the - sexual organs is negligible, and that the danger of - sterilization does not exist at all. The layman will not - differentiate between X-ray diagnostics and X-ray therapy.” - -A. I took this associate into my confidence and told him of my intention -to deceive Himmler, if only to gain time. We agreed to deceive Himmler -by giving him a certificate that seemed to say that sterilization by -X-ray methods was possible and we would thus get him to pursue a false -path. Just what was said in this certificate I do not know any longer. -At any rate there were no positive results in it so that we couldn’t put -it to Himmler in this form. - -DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, let me remark in this connection, that -after great efforts I have succeeded in finding the man who drew up this -certificate of which the witness has just been speaking. I have found -out his name and address. He lives in the Russian zone and for that -reason it was not possible for me to get a copy of that certificate that -he drew up at that time. However, I have contacted this doctor and he -has declared his readiness to come to Nuernberg and to give me an -affidavit, because as he said it, it would be a matter of course that he -should help an innocent man if his testimony could do so. He does -remember having given this certificate to Brack or to his associates and -I ask permission to reserve the right to put this affidavit in evidence -as soon as I have it, and when perhaps the doctor has had a chance to -speak to the defendant. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel for defendant Brack may offer the -affidavit as soon as it is received so long as it complies with the -evidence in the case. - -DR. FROESCHMANN: Thank you, your Honor. Witness, please continue. - -DEFENDANT BRACK: Naturally, this factor of uncertainty had to be taken -into consideration. - -Q. What exactly are you speaking of? - -A. I am talking about the report we received. - -Q. You mean the man who drew up the certificate, the expert? - -A. Yes. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Now, counsel, I don’t want you to misunderstand -me. I said counsel may offer the affidavit; that means it is offered -subject to any objection raised by the prosecution as to the form of the -affidavit or its relevancy. Yesterday, the affidavits from Brazil were -possibly offered by you because the Tribunal had said that they might be -offered. The right to offer simply means offered, subject to objection, -and that is not equivalent to saying that the affidavit will be received -in evidence but it may be offered. That is the sense in which I have -used the word “offer” towards this affidavit. - -DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, your Honor, I understood the President and I shall -only submit an affidavit which is in compliance with the regulation of -this Tribunal. Would you please continue, Witness? - -DEFENDANT BRACK: My collaborator changed the contents of this -certificate in such a manner that sterilization becomes apparent as -something possible from a medical point of view. That is exactly what is -contained in my affidavit. Thus, this letter dated 28 March 1941, -originated with Document NO-203, Prosecution Exhibit 161. - -Q. Mr. President, let us reconstruct this letter quite shortly. I shall -quote. It is addressed by Brack to Himmler, marked “Top Secret.” - - “Dear Reich Leader: - - “Enclosed I send to you for your information the report of the - examination regarding the possibility of an X-ray sterilization - or castration. I ask you to tell me whether anything can be done - in the matter either theoretically or practically.” - -That is the covering letter. This covering letter, Witness, in -connection with the report which is attached was considered by the -prosecution as being a serious suggestion for sterilization and the -prosecution in that connection has stated that this needed no comment. -What is your attitude toward it? - -A. Neither the former nor the latter is correct. I admit that if one -reads this letter or report without knowing the connections that -impression can be created. I therefore have to attempt to analyze this -report in order to explain to the Tribunal what we tried to achieve with -this letter. I have to emphasize once more that the entire thing was a -maneuver of deceit. - -Q. With reference to the report which you attached to this letter -(_NO-203, Pros. Ex. 161_) I should like to quote from it a very brief -passage: - - “Report on experiments concerning X-ray castration. - - “The experiments in this field are concluded. The following - result can be considered as established and adequately based on - scientific research. - - “If any persons are to be sterilized permanently, this result - can only be attained by applying X-rays in a dosage high enough - to produce castration with all its consequences, since high - X-ray dosages destroy the internal secretion of the ovary or of - the testicles, respectively. Lower dosages would only - temporarily paralyze the procreative capacity. The consequences - in question are, for example, the disappearance of menstruation, - climacteric phenomena, changes in capillary growth, modification - of metabolism, etc. In any case, attention must be drawn to - these disadvantages. - - “The actual dosage can be given in various ways, and irradiation - can take place quite imperceptibly. The necessary local dosage - for men is 500-600 r, for women 300-350 r. In general, an - irradiation period of 2 minutes for men, 3 minutes for women, - with the highest voltage, a thin filter, and at a short distance - ought to be sufficient. There is, however, a disadvantage that - has to be put up with. It is impossible unnoticeably to cover - the rest of the body with lead, the other tissues of the body - will be injured, and radiologic malaise, the so-called - ‘Roentgenkater,’ will ensue.” - -Witness, would you define your attitude toward this letter which I -partly read? - -A. I was speaking in connection with the talk I had with Himmler in the -year of 1941. This becomes apparent from the paragraph “I herewith -submit the result of an X-ray examination.” It looks now as though in -effect experiments had been carried out by scientists, which was not the -case. Himmler had to be reassured and that is why we had to emphasize -that the experiments had been concluded and the result could be based on -scientific work. Of course, we couldn’t state the result as being -absolutely positive. We had to leave it to Himmler himself to judge it. -In the first instance it was our intention to get Himmler off the idea. -That is why we chose the formulation which can be seen in that -letter—“If any persons are to be sterilized permanently.” It meant in -effect that this was theoretically possible. At the same time, however, -we pointed out that this success cannot be concealed and that phenomena -will arise. That obviously was shown by the contents of the certificate -itself, and it is emphasized that permanent sterilization makes a high -dosage of X-rays necessary. These high dosages would then bring about -the effects of castration with all of the accompanying symptoms which -would be noticed immediately. If, however, lower dosages were used, you -would only have stopped procreative capacity for a short time. We -actually said that at the end of the report, namely, that the result of -sterilization could be ascertained after a comparatively short time but -that it was impossible to achieve the results of bringing about -sterilization without being noticed, and in this way we thought we could -get Himmler to give up that idea. - -Q. Now, this was the first part of the letter. Now, let us discuss the -second part. I am again referring to the method which you suggested to -Himmler. You thought at that time “One practical way of proceeding would -be, for instance, to let the persons to be treated approach a counter, -where they could be asked to answer some questions or to fill in forms, -which take them 2 or 3 minutes. The official sitting behind the counter -could operate the installation in such a way as to turn a switch which -would activate the two valves simultaneously (since the irradiation is -to operate from both sides). With a two-valve installation about 150-200 -persons could then be sterilized per day and, therefore, with 20 such -installations as many as 3,000-4,000 persons per day. In my estimation a -larger daily number could not in any case be sent away for this -purpose.” - -Herr Brack, how could you arrive at this idea of turning switches? This -is completely nonunderstandable for a layman. - -A. Himmler wanted this procedure to be carried out as simply as -possible. Therefore, we had to suggest as simple a method as we could -think of. On the other hand, this method increased the uncertainty of -directing the rays to the corresponding parts of the body. That is what -was discussed by my collaborator with his acquaintance. We suggested -this switch method to Himmler with the idea of making this matter as -simple as possible and at the same time preventing any active X-ray -reaching the body. Furthermore, only 2-3 minutes were suggested as the -length of time for these people to be subjected to these X-rays. How we -arrived at these 500-600 figures—or 350 r.—I don’t know whether they -were just invented or whether they were based upon something. I don’t -know. But looking at it as a whole it contained a number of points that -were to demonstrate to Himmler that the whole thing could not be carried -out. There is a scientific basis for these suggestions. - -DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in connection with this point I have -tried to get an unobjectionable irreproachable certificate for the -correctness of what the defendant just stated. I shall get a certificate -from a specialist. The man concerned says that this suggestion is -absolutely senseless. I had, however, to wait for this certificate -because I had to wait for an affidavit from another expert physician. -With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall obtain a corresponding -certificate from a radiologist who can show that it is credible that -this entire suggestion was really scientific nonsense. - -A. We had to take into account the possibility that Himmler might accept -this proposal in spite of all these difficulties. We knew, however, that -the preparation of any such installation would take a long time, for the -building, etc. We thought that the war would end very quickly, and as I -said before I didn’t know there was any threat from the West. And, in -case of peace, the Madagascar plan, which had already been rejected, -could once more be placed in the foreground. If on the other hand this -suggestion was to be accepted and if at that time the war had not yet -ended, the carrying out of this experiment on the 100-200 Jews was much -less of an evil than Himmler taking the Jews and sterilizing them en -masse or doing something worse to them. - -Q. Mr. Brack, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that, at that -time, you had to make a decision between either killing millions of Jews -or choosing the smaller evil by only suggesting this small number which -you have mentioned upon whom experiments might be carried out. Is my -opinion correct? - -A. During my interrogations I designated this dilemma in a way by saying -that this was our last way out. But, naturally, when judging these two -possibilities one must take into consideration that one decides upon one -possibility and, at the same time, feels an inner justification for -doing so. The same way as a troop commander sacrifices a few thousand -people somewhere if he can save a hundred thousand somewhere else. - -Q. Now, Mr. Brack, in order to finish with this letter I want to say -that you have stated the following at the end of that letter, and I -quote: - - “In summary it may be said that, having regard to the present - state of radiological technique and research, mass sterilization - by means of X-rays can be carried out without difficulty. - However, it seems to be impossible to do this in such a way that - the persons concerned do not, sooner or later, realize with - certainty that they have been sterilized or castrated by - X-rays.” - -In your covering letter you apparently mentioned your second letter, and -I quote: - - “I request your instructions as to further theoretical or - practical steps if any are to be taken in this matter.” - -What is the significance of this latter statement? - -A. By using this formulation I endeavored to keep control of the -development of that matter. I never really counted on the realization of -these experiments and I never had any intention of submitting a serious -proposal to Himmler which would cause the sterilization of millions of -Jews, but if Himmler was to accept this nonsensical proposal I wanted to -have his idea delayed as long as possible. If this suggestion had been -serious on my part I would have had to be a fanatical Jew hater, and I -think I have already proved that I was not such a person. - - * * * * * - ------ - -[81] Trial of the Major War Criminals, International Military Tribunal, -Nuremberg, 1947, vol. I, pp. 247-253. - -[82] Judgment of the IMT. Ibid. - -[83] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947, -pp. 10874-10910. - -[84] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 7, 8, 9, -12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 May 1947, pp. 7413-7772. - - - B. Jewish Skeleton Collection - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers were charged with criminal -responsibility and participation in plans and enterprises, involving the -murder of civilians and members of the armed forces of nations at war -with the German Reich, and specifically with the murder of 112 Jews for -the purpose of completing a skeleton collection for the Reich University -at Strasbourg (par. 7 of the indictment). On this charge both defendants -were convicted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence and argumentation on the -Jewish skeleton collection is contained in its closing brief against the -defendant Sievers. An extract from this brief is set forth below on -pages 739 to 741. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the -defense has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant -Sievers. It appears below on pages 741 to 747. This argumentation is -followed by selections from the evidence on pages 748 to 759. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST - DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ - - * * * * * - - _Skeleton Collection_ - -In response to a request by the defendant Rudolf Brandt, on 9 February -1942, Sievers submitted to him a report by Dr. Hirt of the University of -Strasbourg on the desirability of securing a collection of Jewish -skeletons. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175._) In this report, Hirt advocated -outright murder of “Jewish Bolshevik Commissars” for the procurement of -such a collection. He stated: - - “By procuring the skulls of the Jewish Bolshevik Commissars, who - personify a repulsive, yet characteristic subhumanity, we have - the opportunity of obtaining tangible scientific evidence. The - actual obtaining and collecting of these skulls _without_ - difficulty could be best accomplished by a directive issued to - the Wehrmacht in the future to immediately turn over alive all - Jewish Bolshevik Commissars to the field police.” - -These units were to report to a special office which would send out -specialists to have photographs and anthropological measurements taken -and ascertain the origin, birth date, and other personal data of the -victims. Hirt further stated: - - “Following _the subsequently induced death_ of the Jew, whose - head must not be damaged, he will separate the head from the - torso and will forward it to its point of destination in a - preserving fluid in a well-sealed tin container especially made - for this purpose. On the basis of the photos, the measurements, - and other data on the head and, finally, the skull itself, - comparative anatomical research, research on racial - classification, pathological features of the skull formation, - form and size of the brain, and many other things can begin. In - accordance with its scope and tasks, the new Reich University of - Strasbourg would be the most appropriate place for the - collection of and research upon these skulls thus acquired.” - [Emphasis supplied.] - -On 27 February 1942, Brandt informed Sievers that Himmler would support -Hirt’s work and would place everything necessary at his disposal. Brandt -requested Sievers to inform Hirt accordingly and to report again on -Hirt’s work. (_NO-090, Pros. Ex. 176._) - -Hirt’s murderous and inhuman plan was carried out in a way which -differed but slightly from the suggestion made in his preliminary -report. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175._) The proof has shown that it was -decided to preserve the whole skeletons of the victims rather than -merely the skulls. On 2 November 1942 Sievers requested Brandt to make -the necessary arrangements with the Reich Security Main Office for -providing 150 Jewish inmates from Auschwitz to carry out this plan. -(_NO-086, Pros. Ex. 177._) On 6 November Brandt informed Adolf Eichmann, -the Chief of Office IV-B-4 (Jewish affairs) of the Reich Security Main -Office to put everything at Hirt’s disposal which was necessary for the -completion of the skeleton collection. (_NO-089, Pros. Ex. 179._) - -From Sievers’ letter to Eichmann of 21 June 1943, it is apparent that SS -Hauptsturmfuehrer Beger, a collaborator of the Ahnenerbe Society, -carried out the preliminary work for the assembling of the skeleton -collection in the Auschwitz concentration camp on 79 Jews, 30 Jewesses, -2 Poles, and 4 Asiatics. In this letter, Sievers stated that Beger had -to interrupt his work because of the danger of infectious diseases in -the camp. Sievers requested that the inmates on whom Beger had carried -out this work be transferred to the Natzweiler concentration camp -because further activities in Auschwitz were impossible due to the -danger of infection. Special accommodation for the thirty women was to -be provided in the Natzweiler concentration camp “_for a short period_”. -[Emphasis added.] (_NO-087, Pros. Ex. 181._) - -The statement of the camp commandant of the Natzweiler concentration -camp, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Josef Kramer, reveals that approximately 80 -inmates of the Auschwitz concentration camp, among them females, were -transferred to the Natzweiler concentration camp and killed there by gas -at the request of Hirt in the beginning of August 1943. A special gas -chamber had been built for this purpose. The corpses of the victims were -sent in three shipments to the Anatomical Institute of Hirt in -Strasbourg University. (_NO-807, Pros. Ex. 185._) This evidence is -corroborated by the testimony of the witness Henripierre. He testified -that in the beginning of August 1943, the principal autopsy technician -of the Anatomical Institute, Bong, received the order from Hirt to -prepare the tanks in the cellar of the Institute for approximately 120 -corpses. At intervals of a few days, three shipments of corpses, 30 -female, 30 male, and 26 male, arrived by truck from an unknown place. -All of these victims were Jewish. These corpses were preserved in the -cellar of the Anatomical Institute in the tanks prepared by Bong. (_Tr. -pp. 712-4._) See also the affidavit of Wagner. (_NO-881, Pros. Ex. -280._) As proved by the Sievers’ diary, Beger was ordered to prepare -plaster casts of the victims. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._) - -Early in September 1944, when the Allied armies were threatening -Strasbourg, Sievers approached the defendant Brandt with the request for -instructions as to what should be done with the Jewish bodies which were -still stored in the tanks in the cellar of the Anatomical Institute. He -informed Brandt that Hirt would be able to “de-flesh” the corpses and -thus render them unrecognizable, but in this case part of the work would -have been done in vain “and it would be a great scientific loss for this -_unique collection_ because casts could not be made afterwards. The -skeleton collection is not conspicuous. Viscera could be declared as -remnants of corpses, apparently left in the Anatomical Institute by the -French and ordered to be cremated.” Sievers requested a directive from -Brandt whether the collection should be preserved, partly dissolved, or -completely dissolved. (_NO-088, Pros. Ex. 182._) - -From the memorandum of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Berg, and his telephone -conversation with Sievers on 15 October 1944, it is apparent that it was -first decided to destroy the evidence of these brutal crimes, but with a -temporary improvement in the military situation, this decision was -rescinded. Sievers informed Berg on 21 October 1944 that, in compliance -with the orders he had received previously, the dissolution of the -collection had been completed. (_NO-091, Pros. Ex. 183._) But such was -not the case. Hirt had ordered Bong and his assistant, Meyer, to cut up -the 86 corpses and have them cremated in the Strasbourg crematorium, but -these two men alone were unable to carry out this enormous task. A -number of corpses remained un-dissected and were left in the tanks, -together with partially dissected corpses, in order to create the -impression that they were used for normal anatomical research. (_Tr. p. -715; NO-881, Pros. Ex. 280._) - -The pictures of these corpses and of the gas chambers in the Natzweiler -concentration camp, where the victims of the Jewish skeleton collection -were murdered, taken by the French authorities after the liberation of -Strasbourg, tell the grim story of this mass murder more vividly than -witnesses and documents ever could. (_NO-483, Pros. Ex. 184_; _NO-807, -Pros. Ex. 185_.) - - * * * * * - - c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR - DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ - - * * * * * - -In 1943 a collection of Jewish skeletons was set up in the Anatomy -Department of the Reich University of Strasbourg according to plans -which had been prepared in 1941 by Himmler and the Director of this -Anatomy Department, Professor Dr. Hirt. The skeletons were to be -obtained by selecting the required number of persons in the -concentration camp at Auschwitz from among the Bolshevist commissars who -had been taken prisoner in the campaign against the Soviet Union. The -liquidation of the persons chosen took place in the concentration camp -at Natzweiler. - -Whether the liquidation entailed a death which was deserved or -undeserved on the part of the persons chosen depends upon whether the -“Commissar Order,” which was the basis of the liquidation, can be -regarded as legal and permissible or not. A detailed examination of this -question can be excluded here, since subjective grounds are of decisive -significance in this connection. - -Sievers did _not_ take part personally _either in the selection or in -the liquidation_ of those persons designated for the skeleton -collection. The choosing was undertaken by a certain Dr. Beger in the -concentration camp at Auschwitz. (_NO-087, Pros. Ex. 181._) Sievers -himself was never in Auschwitz. The liquidation took place in the -concentration camp at Natzweiler. The _earliest date_ at which the -liquidation could have taken place is shown by the date of the -aforementioned document which is dated 21 June 1943. After 23 January -1943, Sievers was no longer in Natzweiler. Therefore, any personal -participation of Sievers in the selection as well as the liquidation is -out of the question. - -We must now examine whether the setting up of the skeleton collection -and the associated liquidation of those persons selected took place on -Sievers’ orders or instructions— - -The _prosecution_ has submitted and read: - - Letter of the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of the Ahnenerbe to - Brandt, dated 9 February 1942, with a report from Dr. Hirt in - which the latter suggests a collection of skulls for the - University of Strasbourg which was to be obtained from - Jewish-Bolshevist Commissars. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175._) - - Letter of Brandt to Sievers, dated 27 February 1942, with the - report that the Reich Leader SS is quite interested in the work - of Professor Hirt and will place at his disposal everything - which he requires for his experiments. (_NO-090, Pros. Ex. - 176._) - - Letter of the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. - Brandt, dated 2 November 1942, regarding the requisition of 150 - skeletons of prisoners for certain anthropological examinations. - (_NO-086, Pros. Ex. 177._) - - Personal staff Reich Leader SS to Reichssicherheitshauptamt - (Main Office for the Security of the Reich), dated 6 November - 1942, regarding transmission of the order of the Reich Leader SS - to make possible the construction of the skeleton collection as - planned. (_NO-089, Pros. Ex. 179._) - - Letter of the personal staff Reich Leader SS to the Ahnenerbe, - dated 3 December 1942, regarding remedying of deficiencies - through SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. (_NO-092, Pros. Ex. 180._) - - Letter of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the - Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Main Office for the Security of the - Reich), dated 21 June 1943, regarding the transfer of the 115 - persons selected by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Beger in the - concentration camp at Auschwitz. (_NO-087, Pros. Ex. 181._) - - Telegram of the personal staff, office “A”, to Dr. Brandt, dated - 5 September 1944, regarding the procurement of instructions as - to what should happen to the collection in the event Strasbourg - should be endangered. (_NO-088, Pros. Ex. 182._) - - Two memoranda of Berg, dated 15 and 26 October 1944, regarding - the breaking up of the collection. (_NO-091, Pros. Ex. 183._) - - Several entries in the diary of Sievers, 1943-44. - - A letter of Sievers to Dr. Hirt, dated 3 January 1942, has been - offered by the prosecution. (_NO-3629, Pros. Ex. 547._) This - letter contains the request of Himmler to Hirt to make available - to him a detailed report regarding his experiments which then - could serve as basis for a conference. - - Letter of the Reich Business Manager to Dr. Hirt, dated 29 - October 1942, regarding the granting of subsidies for research - activities. (_NO-3819, Pros. Ex. 550._) - -In this respect, _counsel for the defense_ declares: - -The idea of setting up a skull collection of Jewish-Bolshevist -Commissars initiated with Dr. Hirt, director of the Anatomy Department -of the University of Strasbourg. Dr. Hirt himself submitted to Himmler -the suggestion for setting up such a collection. (_Tr. p. 5704._) The -suggestion received Himmler’s complete assistance. Himmler issued -instructions to place everything at Hirt’s disposal which he required -for his experiments. (_NO-090, Pros. Ex. 176._) In addition to this, -Himmler issued an order through his personal staff on 6 November 1942 -that everything necessary will be placed at the disposal of Professor -Dr. Hirt. (_NO-089, Pros. Ex. 179._) - -It can be seen from the letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader -SS to the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe, dated 25 March 1942, -how energetically Himmler favored the experiments of Dr. Hirt. This -letter states: - - “In this connection, please get in touch with Hirt as soon as - possible and consider further how Hirt can best be brought - closer to us.” (_Sievers 53, Sievers Ex. 49._) - -It can be seen further from the direct examination of Sievers that Dr. -Hirt was a confidant of Himmler, for Sievers was able to establish this -fact as early as 1936 and in the subsequent years had an opportunity to -repeat this observation. (_Tr. pp. 5706-7._) - -This can also be established by means of the conference which took place -at Easter 1942 regarding the course of which Sievers has given a -detailed description. Among other things, Sievers called attention to -the fact that Hirt and his anatomical collection, which was a University -matter, did not concern the Ahnenerbe in any way. - -Himmler became quite active after this aggressive action of Sievers, -following which the latter requested an order in writing. (_Tr. p. -5715._) - -In this connection, the order of Himmler, dated 7 July 1942, must also -be mentioned. Figure 2 reads as follows (_NO-422, Pros. Ex. 33_): - - “I order the Ahnenerbe - - “1. * * * - - “2. To aid in every possible manner the research activities of - SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt and in the same way - promote all the experiments and work pertinent to same.” - -These facts were necessary in order to clarify matters for the chief -instigators, Himmler and Hirt. Everyone cognizant of the conditions -knows that it was also impossible in this case to act in any way -contrary to the orders issued by Himmler. - -Until the Easter conference of 1942, Sievers knew nothing of the -Commissar Order; Himmler at that time showed him pictures of Bolshevist -Commissars, men and women who had been arrested, as well as pictures of -German soldiers and civilians who had been killed and mutilated in the -most horrible manner by these male and female monsters. This influenced -Sievers’ attitude toward the “Commissar Order,” the contents of which he -learned in outline at that time. The original text of the “Commissar -Order” could not be produced during the Goering[85] trial. For a -clarification of the contents of this order, counsel for the defense -refers to the— - - “Directives for the commands of the Chiefs of the Security - Police and of the Security Service (SD) to be transferred to the - Stalags.” (_Sievers 54, Sievers Ex. 50._) - -As in the other cases, Sievers’ activity consisted in forwarding -correspondence, whether it came from “above,” that is, Himmler, Rudolf -Brandt, or from Hirt or other third parties. It can be shown -conclusively that he himself issued no instructions and orders and -thereby exercised no decisive activity. - -The suggestion to set up a Jewish-Bolshevist skull collection did not -originate with Sievers but with Dr. Hirt. The order for this was issued -by Himmler, who also ordered that Hirt should be granted all possible -assistance. - -Himmler requested information about the anthropological experiments of -Dr. Hirt from Sievers and ordered the presentation of a report from Dr. -Hirt. Thereafter, Sievers submitted, on 9 February 1942, the report -requested again by Dr. Brandt on 29 December 1941. - - * * * * * - -After his meeting with Hirt in May 1941 and his brief report to Himmler, -Sievers obviously did not concern himself further with the entire -matter, until Himmler, in his letter dated 29 December 1941, requested a -detailed report from Hirt through Dr. Brandt. This can be seen from the -reference memorandum of Sievers dated 9 February 1942 in his letter of 9 -February 1942 to R. Brandt (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175_) and was also stated -by Sievers on direct examination. (_Tr. p. 5704._) At that time, Himmler -imparted the information which Sievers passed on to Hirt in his letter -of 3 January 1942. In this letter, the question of a Jewish-Bolshevist -skull collection was never mentioned but simply the matter of -anthropological experiments. It is generally known that the carrying out -of anthropological experiments forms a part of the chief duties of every -anatomical institute, and also that such experiments are conducted on -designated groups of persons, and that persons who have been executed -are turned over to anatomical institutes for research purposes. Upon the -request of Hirt for assistance in his anthropological experiments, -Himmler immediately made a corresponding offer; as the competent chief -of the German police, he was in a position to do so. And Sievers, at -that time, need not have assumed, by any stretch of the imagination that -the experimental subjects were to be killed for this purpose. On the -basis of the general practice, he could perhaps more easily assume that -only the corpses of those legally condemned to death and legally -executed would be considered for the experiments of Hirt. Today we know -that it was compatible with his criminal mentality insofar as human -experiments and the like were concerned. At that time, the latter part -of 1941, no one who, like Sievers, had not up to this time come in -contact with experiments on human beings could have suspected in advance -that in this case it would be a question of criminal acts. - -In addition, there was no provision made at all at this time for Hirt’s -working in connection with the Ahnenerbe. In his letter of 3 January -1942 to Hirt, Sievers writes: - - “In order to effect your transfer to the Ahnenerbe, that is, to - the Personal Staff of the Reich Leader SS, I would like some - information from you.” - -Naturally, Himmler wanted Hirt to be as close to him as possible, but in -reference to the transfer Sievers adds: “* * * that is, to the Personal -Staff of the Reich Leader SS”, for neither Sievers nor Hirt assumed that -Hirt would receive the support of Himmler through the Institute for -Humanistic Studies of the Ahnenerbe of all things. This was also -testified to by Sievers on direct examination. (_Tr. pp. 5715 6._) - -Not until later did Hirt’s connection with the Ahnenerbe develop as a -result of the personal and extraordinary urging of Himmler, as can be -proved by the two letters, dated 27 February 1942 (_NO-090, Pros. Ex. -176_), and 25 March 1942 (_Sievers 33, Sievers Ex. 49_). On the basis of -these letters and the efforts of Himmler, Sievers then lodged a protest -with Himmler at Easter, 1942—5 April—as he set forth in detail on -direct examination. (_Tr. pp. 5714-15._) - -As a matter of fact, Hirt did not become a member of the Ahnenerbe until -the fall of 1942, as can be seen from the prosecution rebuttal Document -NO-3819, Prosecution Exhibit 550. - -The rebuttal documents submitted by the prosecution in this matter do -not, therefore, refute the testimony of Sievers on his direct -examination, but _confirm them_, which is also shown by the affidavits -of Frau Dr. Schmitz (_Sievers 45, Sievers Ex. 46_; _Sievers 55, Sievers -Ex. 51_), and is shown in a further summary in the affidavit of Sievers. -(_Sievers 64, Sievers Ex. 59._) - -Letter of the Chief of the Security Police (SIPO) and of the Security -Service (SD) dated 9 November 1941, regarding the transportation of the -Soviet-Russian prisoners of war, who were to be executed, to the -concentration camps (_1234-PS, Pros. Ex. 555_): - -It can be seen from this document that Soviet-Russian prisoners of war -who were to be executed were taken to the concentration camps. Although -the Commissar Order was not known to Sievers in detail, it follows from -the context of the Easter conference of 1942, which Sievers had with -Himmler, that Soviet-Russian Commissars were affected by this order. At -that time, it was generally known in the German Wehrmacht and also among -the German civilian population that there were female commissars in the -Soviet-Russian Army who evidenced an unusual degree of fanaticism. It -was also known that strong gangs of insurgents were being formed behind -the German front line, who were conducting a ruthless and brutal war -against members of the German Wehrmacht of both sexes contrary to all -the rules of international law. In the ranks of these gangs there were -many riflewomen who, in complete accordance with the provisions of -international law, were condemned to death. In this respect, it must be -stated that all or the great majority of the Soviet-Russian Commissars -did not commit crimes against international law. However, there can be -no doubt that within their great numbers, a certain number could have -also been found who could have committed such crimes. Since the number -of skeletons requested by Hirt was small, Sievers could assume that only -such criminals could be considered for the collection. - -Therefore, it cannot be argued that Sievers must in any case have -assumed from the letter dictated by Dr. Beger to the Reich Security Main -Office, dated 21 June 1943, that the persons who had been chosen by Dr. -Beger in the concentration camp at Auschwitz were to be liquidated -without trial or without any legal basis. It was not the duty of Sievers -to check this matter. Here we must examine only whether Sievers in any -case is bound to have recognized that the proceedings were illegal or -whether he could rely on the fact that there existed a legal basis for -the liquidation ordered by Himmler. Considering the war conditions in -the East, Sievers could assume the latter fact without further ado. - -These statements are only made in case it should be assumed that Sievers -had the obligation to examine this independently. We think, however, -that someone who was only engaged in a subordinate position was entitled -to rely on the legality of the decisions of his superior. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - -Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page -NO-085 175 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 9 748 - February 1942, and report by Hirt - concerning the acquisition of skulls - of Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars. -NO-086 177 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 2 750 - November 1942, requesting with - Himmler’s approval, 150 skeletons. -NO-087 181 Letter from Sievers to Eichmann (copy to 751 - Rudolf Brandt), 21 June 1943, - concerning selection of subjects for a - skeleton collection. -NO-807 185 Tank containing formaldehyde for the 905 - preservation of corpses; corpses - assembled in tanks prior to - dissection; corpse showing incisions - in preparation for dissection. (_See - Selections from Photographic Evidence - of the Prosecution._) - - _Defense Documents_ - -Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page -Sievers 45 Sievers Ex. 46 Extract from the affidavit of Dr. Gisela 752 - Schmitz, 27 March 1947, on Sievers’ - position in the Ahnenerbe Society and - his connection with the skeleton - collection. -Sievers 54 Sievers Ex. 50 Regulations for the Commandos 754 - (Einsatzkommandos) of the Security - Police and the Security Service to be - activated in Stalags. - - _Testimony_ - -Extract from the testimony of defendant Rudolf Brandt 757 - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-085 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 175 - - LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 9 FEBRUARY 1942, AND REPORT BY -HIRT CONCERNING THE ACQUISITION OF SKULLS OF JEWISH-BOLSHEVIK COMMISSARS - -The Ahnenerbe -The Reich Business Manager - - Berlin, 9 February 1942 - G/R/2 page 1 - -To: SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt -Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 8 - - Secret -Dear Comrade Brandt: - -For the reason that Professor Dr. Hirt has in the meantime become -seriously ill, I regret that I have been unable to submit any sooner Dr. -Hirt’s report which you requested in your letter of 29 December 1941, -Journal No. AR/493/37. He was stricken with pulmonary hemorrhages, the -diagnosis was “cystlung”, so at least it is not TB. In addition to that -he suffered from circulatory asthenia. At present he is still in the -hospital, but hopes that the doctor will release him soon so that he -can, at least to a limited degree, resume his work. Due to those -circumstances Professor Hirt was able to furnish only a preliminary -report which, however, I still should like to submit to your attention. -The report concerns— - -1. His research in the field of microscopy of living tissues, the -discovery of a new method of examination, and the construction of a new -research microscope, and - -2. a proposal for securing skulls of Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars. - -As a supplement to report 1, some special publications are attached; of -which the two parties from the “Zeiss Nachrichten” #10 (Vol. II) and 1-5 -(Vol. III) facilitate most rapid general orientation, whereas other -publications deal with difficult, individual scientific studies. - - Sincerely yours - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] SIEVERS - -_Enclosures_ - - * * * * * - -_Enclosure_ - -Subject: Securing skulls of Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars for the purpose -of scientific research at the Reich University of Strasbourg. - -There exist extensive collections of skulls of almost all races and -peoples. Of the Jewish race, however, only so very few specimens of -skulls are at the disposal of science that a study of them does not -permit precise conclusions. The war in the East now presents us with the -opportunity to remedy this shortage. By procuring the skulls of the -Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars, who personify a repulsive yet -characteristic subhumanity, we have the opportunity of obtaining -tangible scientific evidence. - -The actual obtaining and collecting of these skulls without difficulty -could be best accomplished by a directive issued to the Wehrmacht in the -future to immediately turn over alive all Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars to -the field police [Feldpolizei]. The field police in turn is to be issued -special directives to continually inform a certain office of the number -and place of detention of these captured Jews and to guard them well -until the arrival of a special deputy. This special deputy, commissioned -with the collection of the material (a junior physician attached to the -Wehrmacht or even the field police, or a medical student equipped with -car and driver), is to take a prescribed series of photographs and -anthropological measurements, and is to ascertain, insofar as is -possible, the origin, date of birth, and other personal data of the -prisoner. Following the subsequently induced death of the Jew, whose -head must not be damaged, he will separate the head from the torso and -will forward it to its point of destination in a preserving fluid in a -well-sealed tin container especially made for this purpose. On the basis -of the photos, the measurements and other data on the head and, finally, -the skull itself, comparative anatomical research, research on racial -classification, pathological features of the skull formation, form and -size of the brain, and many other things can begin. In accordance with -its scope and tasks, the new Reich University of Strasbourg would be the -most appropriate place for the collection of and research on the skulls -thus acquired. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-086 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 177 - - LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 2 NOVEMBER 1942, REQUESTING WITH - HIMMLER’S APPROVAL, 150 SKELETONS - -The Ahnenerbe -The Reich Business Manager - - Berlin, 2 November 1942 - [Stamp] - Personal Staff Reich Leader SS - Registration of Files Secret 5/116 - - Secret - -To: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt -Berlin - -Dear Comrade Brandt! - -The Reich Leader SS once ordered, as you know, that SS Hauptsturmfuehrer -Prof. Dr. Hirt should be provided with all necessary material for his -research work. I have already reported to the Reich Leader SS that for -some anthropological studies 150 skeletons of inmates or Jews are needed -and should be provided by the Auschwitz concentration camp. It is only -necessary for the Reich Security Main Office to be furnished now with an -official directive by the Reich Leader SS; by order of the Reich Leader -SS, however, you could issue it yourself. - - Sincerely yours, - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] SIEVERS - -1 enclosure: -Draft of a letter to the Reich Security Main Office - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-087 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 181 - - LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO EICHMANN (COPY TO RUDOLF BRANDT), 21 JUNE 1943, - CONCERNING SELECTION OF SUBJECTS FOR A SKELETON COLLECTION - - [Handwritten] XI a 56 - -Ahnenerbe Office -Institute for Military Scientific Research -G/H/6, S2/He. - - Berlin-Dahlem, Puecklerstrasse 16, 21 June 1943 - Top Secret - - G.R.Z.I. A.H. Sk. No. 10 - 5 copies—2d copy - no enclosures - -To -Reich Security Main Office -Office IV B 4 -Attention: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, -Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 8 -Subject: Assembling of a skeleton collection. - -With reference to your letter of 25 September 1942, IV B 4 3576/42 g -1488, and the personal talks which have taken place in the meantime on -the above matter, you are informed that the coworker in this office who -was charged with the execution of the above-mentioned special task, SS -Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Bruno Beger, ended his work in the Auschwitz -concentration camp on 15 June 1943 because of the existing danger of -infectious diseases. - -A total of 115 persons were worked on, 79 of whom were Jews, 2 Poles, 4 -Asiatics, and 30 Jewesses. At present, these prisoners are separated -according to sex and each group is accommodated in a hospital building -of the Auschwitz concentration camp and are in quarantine. - -For further processing of the selected persons an _immediate transfer to -the Natzweiler concentration camp is now imperative_; this must be -accelerated in view of the _danger of infectious diseases in Auschwitz_. -Enclosed is a list containing the names of the selected persons. - -It is requested that the necessary directives be issued. - -Since with the transfer of the prisoners to Natzweiler the danger of -spreading diseases exists, it is requested that an immediate shipment of -_disease-free and clean prisoners’ clothing_ for 80 men and 30 women be -ordered sent from Natzweiler to Auschwitz. - -At the same time one must provide for the accommodation of the _30 -women_ in the Natzweiler concentration camp for a short period. - - [Signature] SIEVERS - SS Standartenfuehrer - -Carbon copies to— -_a._ SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Beger -_b._ SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Hr. Hirt -_c._ SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT SIEVERS 45 - SIEVERS DEFENSE EXHIBIT 46 - - EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. GISELA SCHMITZ, 27 MARCH 1947, ON - SIEVERS’ POSITION IN THE AHNENERBE SOCIETY AND HIS CONNECTION WITH THE - SKELETON COLLECTION - - * * * * * - -In 1937 I was appointed Secretary in the Research and Instruction -Society, the Ahnenerbe, Registered Association, where I remained until -the end of the war in 1945. During all these years I worked for Wolfram -Sievers, who was Reich Business Manager, and I gained thereby a fairly -comprehensive insight into the organization of the Ahnenerbe and into -Sievers activity. - -The organization of the Ahnenerbe during the time when I was attached to -it was as follows: - -Himmler was the president; Professor Wuest, Rector of Munich University, -was his curator; Sievers was responsible to the latter as Reich Business -Manager. - -An internal code of procedure laid down as a regulation for the Reich -Business Manager stipulated that all decisive functions were the concern -of the department chief and curator of the Ahnenerbe. According to this -all decisions had to be obtained by the Reich Business Manager from the -department chief if they were not dealt with by the president. Professor -Wuest had the right to report direct to Himmler as president on all -questions; Sievers could only do so on administrative concerns, and then -only when Himmler consulted him on special matters and requested a -report of him. - -Sievers’ own sphere was financial and staff administration and the -supervision of the business dealings of the Ahnenerbe. In scientific -matters Sievers was denied the right to issue any orders. He was also -forbidden personally to sign letters concerning scientific matters. -However, as it was not always possible in practice to send all letters -from Berlin to Munich, the domicile and permanent residence of the -curator, for signature, Sievers often signed; Wuest then countersigned -the copy. - -When in 1942 the Ahnenerbe became a department of the personal staff of -the Reich Leader SS, Professor Wuest became department chief. He was -thus made responsible for all matters of administration and personnel, -which had hitherto been the responsibility of the Reich Business -Manager. Himmler personally made it quite clear to Sievers that he was -not to interfere in scientific affairs. - -In this connection I mention briefly the Ahnenerbe diary which it was -Sievers’ duty, as Reich Business Manager, to write up. By express order -of Himmler, all departments of the Reich Leader SS had to keep diaries. -They were a hobby-horse of Himmler’s, and failure to comply with this -order would have had very unpleasant consequences for the person -responsible. Sievers who was frequently away from Berlin used to dictate -the diary entries on his return. I know that the entries would not -always have been able to stand close examination—they were inaccurate -in parts and sometimes fabricated. Sievers insisted upon keeping the -diary ostensibly correct, so as not to offend Himmler. The reasons for -this will be explained by a later part of my statement. Sievers also -mentioned to me the collection of Jewish-Bolshevik skulls, which was -planned by Professor Hirt of Strasbourg. - -Document NO-085, Prosecution Exhibit 175, regarding the collection of -Jewish skeletons has been submitted to me. With the exception of the -last paragraph which begins with the words “For the preservation * * *”, -the report was—as far as I remember—drafted by Dr. Bruno Beger who had -come from the SS Race and Settlement Main Office (RuSHA).[86] I first -saw the report in the autumn of 1941. The report had already been -circulated in all possible offices and one copy had also been sent to -the Ahnenerbe. The reasons why the report had also been sent to the -Ahnenerbe are unknown to me; in any case, Sievers showed me this -proposal with all signs of horror and defined it as a hybrid outgrowth -of the propaganda which at that time used to describe the eastern -nations as “subhuman.” The report itself was filed away, as it did not -concern us, or passed on to the chief of the Ahnenerbe, Professor Wuest, -as it was really a “scientific” matter. One day Sievers told me that -Himmler had mentioned this matter in a private conversation—I believe -it was in connection with Professor Hirt—and ordered the document to be -submitted after obtaining an opinion from Professor Hirt. Hirt then -added the last paragraph. With this addition the report was forwarded to -the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS and to Dr. Rudolf Brandt. - -With regard to the Document NO-087, Prosecution Exhibit 181, as shown to -me, I can state: the letter to the Reich Security Main Office bears the -dictation reference S 2/Ha. According to this, the letter was not -dictated by Sievers himself, but—as I remember—by Dr. Beger who -dictated the letter in the office of subdepartment Chief Wolff, whose -reference number was S 2. - -With regard to Document NO-088, Prosecution Exhibit 182, I can say that -Professor Hirt had asked by telephone for a decision on the suggestions -which appear at the end of this document. Sievers only passed this -request of Hirt on to the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS. - -Sievers spoke to me repeatedly about the experiments on humans and also -about the collection of skeletons and always said that these things were -very much against his inner feelings. Repeatedly, I had an opportunity -to see how much Sievers suffered in this connection. He sometimes had -pronounced periods of depression. - - * * * * * - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT SIEVERS 54 - SIEVERS DEFENSE EXHIBIT 50 - - REGULATIONS FOR THE COMMANDOS (EINSATZKOMMANDOS)[87] OF THE SECURITY - POLICE AND THE SECURITY SERVICE TO BE ACTIVATED IN STALAGS - - B 101 - Enclosures 2 -Office IV Berlin, 17 July 1941 - - Top Secret - -The activation of commandos will take place in accordance with the -agreement of the Chief of the Security Police and Security Service and -the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces as of 16 July 1941. The -commandos will work independently according to special authorization and -in consequence of the general regulations given to them in the limits of -the camp organizations. Naturally, the commandos will keep close contact -with the camp commander and the defense officers assigned to him. - -The mission of the commandos is the political investigating of all camp -inmates, the elimination and further treatment— - -_a._ of all political, criminal, or in some other way unbearable -elements among them. - -_b._ of those persons who could be used for the reconstruction of the -occupied territories. - -For the execution of their mission, no additional means can be put at -the disposal of the commandos. The Deutsche Fahndungsbuch [German Wanted -List] the Aufenthaltsermittlungsliste [Residence Locator List] and the -Sonderfahndungsbuch UdSSR [Special Wanted List, Union of the Soviet -Socialist Republic] will prove to be useful in only a small number of -cases; the Sonderfahndungsbuch UdSSR is not sufficient, because it -contains only a small part of Soviet Russians considered to be -dangerous. - -Therefore, the commandos must use their special knowledge and ability -and rely on their own findings and self-acquired knowledge. Therefore, -they will be able to start carrying out their mission only when they -have gathered together appropriate material. - -The commandos must use for their work as far as possible, at present and -even later, the experiences of the camp commanders which the latter have -collected meanwhile from observation of the prisoners and examinations -of camp inmates. - -Further, the commandos must make efforts from the beginning to seek out -among the prisoners elements which appear reliable, regardless if there -are Communists concerned or not, in order to use them for intelligence -purposes inside of the camp and, if advisable, later in the occupied -territories also. - -By use of such informers and by use of all other existing possibilities, -the discovery of all elements to be eliminated among the prisoners must -succeed step by step at once. The commandos must learn for themselves, -in every case, by means of short questioning of the informers and -eventual questioning of other prisoners. - -The information of one informer is not sufficient to designate a camp -inmate to be a suspect without further proof; it must be confirmed in -some way if possible. - -Above all, the following must be discovered; all important functionaries -of state and party, especially— - - Professional revolutionaries. - - Functionaries of the Comintern. - - All policy forming party functionaries of the Communist Party of - the Soviet Union and its subsidiary organizations in the central - committees, in the regional and district committees. - - All Peoples Commissars and their deputies. - - All former Political Commissars in the Red Army. - - Leading personalities of the Main and intermediate offices of - the state authorities. - - Members of the Soviet Russian intelligentsia. - - All Jews. - - All persons who are found to be agitators or fanatical - Communists. - -It is not less important, as mentioned already, to discover all those -persons who could be used for the reconstruction, administration, and -management of the conquered Russian territories. - -Finally, all such persons must be secured who are still needed for the -completion of further investigation, regardless if they are police -investigations or other investigations, and for settling questions of -general interest. Among them are all those especially who, because of -their position and their knowledge, are able to give information about -measures and working methods of the Soviet-Russian State, of the -Communist Party, or of the Comintern. - -In the final analysis, consideration must be given to origin in all -decisions to be made. The leader of the Einsatzkommando will give a -short report every week by telephone or an express letter to the Reich -Security Main Office, containing: - -1. Short description of their activities in the past week. - -2. Number of all definitely suspicious persons (report of number -sufficient). - -3. Individual names of all persons found to be functionaries of the -Comintern, leading functionaries of the party, Peoples Commissars, -leading personalities, and political commissars. - -4. Number of all persons found not to be suspicious informers, with a -short description of their position. - -A. Prisoners of war. - -B. Civilians. - -On the basis of those activity reports the Reich Security Main Office -will issue immediately the further measures to be applied. For the -measures to be applied on the basis of this successive directive, the -commandos are to demand the surrender of the prisoners involved from the -camp command. - -The camp commandants have received orders from the Supreme Commander of -the Armed Forces to approve such requests. - -Executions are not to be held in the camp or in the immediate vicinity -of the camp. If the camps in the General Government are in the immediate -vicinity of the border, then the prisoners are to be taken for special -treatment, if possible, into former Soviet-Russian territory. - -Should executions be necessary for reasons of camp discipline, then the -leader of the Einsatzkommando must apply to the camp commander for it. - -The commandos have to keep lists about the special treatments carried -out and must contain— - - Current number. - - Family name and first name. - - Date and place of birth. - - Military rank. - - Profession. - - Last residence. - - Reason for special treatment. - - Day and place of special treatment (card file). - -In regard to executions to be carried out and to the possible removal of -reliable civilians and the removal of informers for the Einsatz group in -the occupied territories, the leader of the Einsatzkommando must make an -agreement with the nearest state police office, as well as with the -commandant of the security police unit and security service and beyond -these with the chief of the Einsatz group concerned in the occupied -territories. - -Reports of that kind are to be transmitted for information to the Reich -Security Main Office, IV A 1. Excellent behavior during and after duty, -the best cooperation with the camp commanders, and careful examinations -are the duty of all leaders and members of the Einsatzkommando. - -The members of the Einsatzkommando must be constantly aware of the -special importance of the missions entrusted to them. - - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT[88] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness, I now put to you documents concerning, among -other things, procuring skulls of Jewish-Bolshevist Commissars. Please -look at page 1 of Document NO-085, Prosecution Exhibit 175. This is a -letter from the Ahnenerbe, of 9 February 1942, addressed to you. It is a -secret communication, and it bears Sievers’ signature. There are two -annexes to this document. One of them concerns research into microscopy, -and the other one concerns the suggestion for procuring the -afore-mentioned skeletons for the purpose of scientific research. Now, I -ask you whether you received this document, whether you are familiar -with the contents of this letter, and whether you still remember it -today? - -DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT: I received the letter with the inclosures, but -I recall as little about this as I recall about the other matters. - -Q. Do you wish to say then that you did not read the two inclosures to -this letter? - -A. That is what I really should like to say because, as I have already -said, reports which were destined for the Reich Leader were put with the -mail that he was to read personally, and it would have been the same in -the case of Professor Hirt’s report, which is really incomprehensible to -a lay reader. - -Q. Perhaps I might point out to the Tribunal that the two inclosures are -wrongly bound in the document. The first inclosure refers to the -microscopic research and the second inclosure to the procuring of -skeletons. Is that also your opinion, Herr Brandt? - -A. Yes. That is how the letter states it. First, comes the microscopic -study and then the other. - -Q. Now, I ask you, with particular regard to the fact that you are -testifying under oath, did you know in detail that, as can be seen from -this report, human beings were to be killed and that the skulls or -skeletons were then to be sent to the University of Strasbourg? Did you -know these details? - -A. No. I did not know these details. - -Q. Would you tell us just what you did know, in broad terms? - -A. I knew the contents of the letter which I sent on to Eichmann. - -Q. This is Document NO-116, Prosecution Exhibit 178. In this letter you -inform Eichmann that everything necessary would be done for Professor -Hirt to build up this collection of skeletons, and you say further that -SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers will communicate with Eichmann as to the -details of this. I now ask you, who is Eichmann? - -A. I do not think that I had any idea who Eichmann was at that time. -Sievers sent me the draft of this letter, which I certainly did not send -on in this form as it appears here. As was always the case, I showed it -to Himmler, and only then did I send it on. I am quite sure that I heard -Eichmann’s name then for the first time. I did not know him otherwise, -nor did I know him later. - -Q. Can you not tell us whether you did not have some idea as to what was -going on here in this whole business? When, for instance, one heard that -a collection of skeletons was to be made, then one would surely ask -oneself what was really going on? - -A. I certainly had no other ideas concerning this matter than those that -would normally arise in connection with a collection of skeletons for -anatomical purposes; and it would never have occurred to me that any -prisoners would be used for this except those who had died a normal -death. - -Q. Did you work on this affair independently thereafter, or did you -submit the matter to Himmler for him to decide and arrange? - -A. It was submitted to Himmler, like all other questions. To begin with -I was not thoroughly versed in such matters, and secondly, owing to my -lack of technical knowledge, I could not give orders or instructions for -it to be carried out. - -Q. I draw your attention now to Document NO-087, Prosecution Exhibit -181, again a letter to Eichmann marked “secret”, dated 21 June 1943. The -letter was apparently sent by Sievers with copies for two other persons -and also with a copy to be sent to you. This letter says that altogether -115 persons would be affected and that the selected persons should be -sent to the concentration camp at Natzweiler. How would such a letter be -handled by you in your registry office—I refer now to the copy which -was sent to you? Did you again submit it to Himmler, and did you or -someone else lay the letter aside? - -A. I do not remember ever having seen this letter. The file note on it -bears an initial that is not mine, but that of my collaborator Berg. He -also initialed for filing several of the documents that are in the -document book. - -Q. Now, please look at the file note of Berg. (_NO-091, Pros. Ex. 183._) -Would you say that that is the same Berg who initialed the foregoing -document? - -A. Yes. That is the same Berg. - -Q. Now, please look at Document NO-091. Here it says, “Note—for SS -Standartenfuehrer Dr. Brandt”, and it is signed by Berg. This reproduces -a talk that Berg had with Sievers; do you remember seeing this notation? - -A. I do not remember having seen it. - -Q. Let me point out the date, 26 October 1944. - -A. That was the last day of our stay at our East Prussian quarters. The -Russians were only about 30 to 40 kilometers away. Berg would have made -the note so that I could get a final report to Himmler. As, however, we -had to clear out by that evening, there were more important things to do -than to submit such a memorandum, so that possibly he did not show it to -me at all. - ------ - -[85] Trial before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the -Major War Criminals, vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[86] See Case 8, United States _vs._ Ulrich Greifelt, et al. in vols. IV -and V. - -[87] See Case 9, United States _vs._ Otto Ohlendorf, et al. in vol. IV. - -[88] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 24, 25, -26 March 1947, pp. 4869-4994. - - - C. Project To Kill Tubercular Polish Nationals - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Blome and Rudolf Brandt were charged with participation -in and responsibility for the murder and mistreatment of tens of -thousands of Polish Nationals allegedly infected with incurable -tuberculosis (par. 8 of the indictment). On this charge both defendants -were acquitted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence and argumentation on this -charge is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Blome. An -extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 760 to 763. A -corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense has been selected -from the final plea for the defendant Blome. It appears below on pages -763 to 768. This argumentation is followed by selections from the -evidence on pages 769 to 794. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST - DEFENDANT BLOME_ - - * * * * * - -_Personal Participation in Criminal Activities—Murder and Mistreatment of - Polish Nationals_ - -By 1941 it was the accepted policy of the Third Reich to exterminate the -Jewish population of Germany and the occupied countries. (IMT -judgment.[89]) In pursuance of this policy the Reich Governor of the -Warthegau, Greiser, obtained permission from Himmler to exterminate the -Jewish population in this province. In a letter of 1 May 1942, he -informed Himmler that the “special treatment” of about 100,000 Jews -would be completed within 2 to 3 months. He stated that as soon as this -task was completed, the “existing and efficient special commandos” could -be used for the extermination of approximately 35,000 Polish Nationals -who suffered from open tuberculosis. These Poles allegedly were a danger -to the German officials and their families because they were a possible -source of tubercular infection. Greiser went on to say: - - “The ever-increasing risks were also recognized and appreciated - by the deputy of the Reich Health Leader for Public Health - [Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer] Comrade Professor Dr. Blome as well - as by the leader of your X-ray battalion, SS Standartenfuehrer - Prof. Dr. Hohlfelder. - - “Though in Germany proper it is not possible to take appropriate - draconic steps against this public plague, I think I could take - responsibility for my suggestion to have cases of open - tuberculosis exterminated among the Polish race here in the - Warthegau. Of course, only a Pole should be handed over to such - an action who is not only suffering from open tuberculosis, but - whose incurability is proved and certified by a public health - officer. - - “Considering the urgency of this project I ask for your approval - in principle as soon as possible. This would enable us to make - the preparations with all necessary precautions now to get the - action against the Poles suffering from open tuberculosis under - way, while the action against the Jews is in its closing - stages.” (_NO-246, Pros. Ex. 196._) - -In a letter of 27 June 1942 Himmler gave consent in principle to this -plan and instructed Greiser to discuss the individual measures in detail -with the security police first, in order to assure an inconspicuous -accomplishment of the task. (_NO-244, Pros. Ex. 201._) On 21 November -1942 Greiser informed Himmler that the examinations which were to be -carried out in order to separate the curable and incurable would be -executed by Professor Hohlfelder and his X-ray battalion. He estimated -that the first utilization of the method would be in approximately six -months. He further stated: - - “In this stage of the proceedings, Professor Dr. Blome, in his - capacity as Deputy Chief of the Public Health Office [Hauptamt - fuer Volksgesundheit] of the NSDAP is raising some objections as - to its execution, as he states in a letter of 18 November. These - objections are expressed only now, although Dr. Blome and Dr. - Hohlfelder and myself have spent months of preliminary work on - examination, clarification, and straightening out the whole - procedure. - - “I enclose a copy of Blome’s letter of 18 November for your - information * * *.” (_NO-249, Pros. Ex. 202._) - -In this letter, Blome stated that among the Polish population of the -province, at least 35,000 persons were suffering from open tuberculosis, -and besides this number, about 120,000 consumptives were in need of -treatment. This constituted an enormous danger to the German settlers in -all parts of the province. In order to make further German immigration -possible, counter measures were to be taken soon. Blome then outlined -the three ways for the practical elimination of the danger of infection: - - “1. Special treatment [Sonderbehandlung] of the seriously ill - persons. - - “2. Most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill persons. - - “3. Creation of a reservation for all tubercular patients.” - -As to the first proposal he stated: - - “The approximately 35,000 Poles who are incurable and infectious - will be ‘specially treated’. All other Polish consumptives will - be subjected to an appropriate cure in order to save them for - work and to avoid their causing contagion.” (_NO-249, Pros. Ex. - 202._) - -Blome pointed out that one of the practical difficulties of outright -extermination of all tubercular Poles was that it might provide -excellent propaganda material for the enemies of Germany, especially -with regard to the strong Catholic feelings of the Italian nation and -“all the physicians of the world.” He therefore considered it necessary -that Hitler himself personally decide on this step. Should Hitler -consider this radical solution as unsuitable, preparations for the -execution of the plan as outlined in points 2 and 3 should be made. The -exclusive settlement of all tubercular Poles, irrespective of whether -they were curable or incurable, would remove the danger of infection for -the German settlers. These Poles should be used for labor. Not only the -tubercular Poles of the Warthegau, but also those in Danzig-West -Prussia, those of the administrative district of Zichenau, and of the -Province of Upper Silesia should be isolated in the same settlement. He -stated: - - “Another solution to be taken into consideration would be a - strict isolation of all the infectious and incurable - consumptives, without exception, in nursing establishments. - _This solution would lead to the comparatively rapid death of - the sick._ With the necessary addition of Polish doctors and - nursing personnel, the character of a pure death camp would be - somewhat mitigated.” (_NO-249, Pros. Ex. 202._) - -Finally Blome advocated as the most practicable solution the creation of -a reservation similar to the reservation for lepers. Within the -reservation, the strict isolation of the strongly contagious could -easily be achieved. In this way the danger of infection would be removed -and the problem of the German consumptives in the province would be -overcome. (_NO-250, Pros. Ex. 203._) Blome admitted that the expression -“special treatment” which he used in the letter meant the killing of the -tubercular Poles. (_Tr. p. 4791._) - -Himmler approved Blome’s plan to create a reservation for tubercular -Poles, incurable and curable alike, in a letter to Greiser dated 3 -December 1942. It would be possible to exploit this action for -propaganda purposes, whereas on the other hand, outright extermination -of those inflicted with open tuberculosis would take too long, as the -X-ray examinations of the Polish population would require at least six -months. (_NO-251, Pros. Ex. 204._) - -That at least some of the tubercular Poles were exterminated, while the -others were taken to death camps where they were left to die, is proved -by the affidavit of the defendant Rudolf Brandt. (_NO-441, Pros. Ex. -205._) Brandt tried to explain, not to say repudiate, this affidavit by -testifying that he made the statements on the basis of documents shown -to him in pretrial interrogations. He stressed the point, however, that -he insisted the wording of one sentence be changed. This sentence -originally read: “As a result of the suggestions made by Blome and -Greiser, 8-10,000 Poles were exterminated”! He changed the expression -“8-10,000” to “numerous.” (_Tr. pp. 4890, 4953._) This proves in itself -that Brandt did not make his statement in exclusive reliance on the -contents of the documents shown to him in pretrial interrogations (_Tr. -p. 4891_) but also on the basis of the knowledge he obtained as -collaborator of Himmler. The documents do not show the execution of -“numerous” Poles. Moreover, Brandt states in these documents that Dr. -Blome visited Himmler from time to time and supported Greiser’s -suggestions. There is no document in evidence or in the possession of -the prosecution which would give the basis for this statement. It is, -therefore, clear that Brandt’s statements are founded upon knowledge -which he obtained from Himmler. - -Without a doubt, Rudolf Brandt is as well advised on the crimes which -are the subject of this trial as any man in Germany. There is no reason -whatever for refusing to give full weight to the pretrial statements of -Brandt. There has been no proof that these statements were obtained by -fraud or duress. Brandt’s testimony before the Tribunal can be summed up -in one sentence: “I remember nothing.” Aside from a description of -Himmler’s personality, he contented himself with giving answers to -leading questions by his attorney which were calculated to reveal him as -a disembodied stenographic automaton—something in the nature of a -proficient half-wit. Surely his pretrial affidavits are entitled to more -weight than the blatant nonsense which was his testimony. - -Blome denied that he ever planned or suggested that Poles suffering from -open tuberculosis should be exterminated and that the remainder should -be put in reservations and left there to die (_Tr. pp. 4578, 4790-1_) -but he is contradicted by the proof of his own making. - - * * * * * - - c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR THE DEFENDANT - BLOME_[90] - - * * * * * - -Probably the most serious accusation against Dr. Blome seemed to be the -allegation that he had proposed the murder of 25,000-30,000 tubercular -Poles and had taken part in carrying out this plan. The evidence clearly -shows, however, that this accusation is quite unfounded. I maintain on -the contrary (_a_) it is not true that Dr. Blome approved or supported -this murderous plan, and (_b_) it is also untrue that this plan was ever -carried out. It is true, however, that it was Dr. Blome himself who -prevented this devilish plan. It was Dr. Blome who, by his clever -intervention saved the lives of the 25,000-30,000 tubercular Poles who -were to be “liquidated.” - -The documents show that this plan originated with Gauleiter Greiser and -Reich Leader SS Himmler. Blome was then assigned to this matter because -it was known that he had for many years made the fight against -tuberculosis the aim of his life, and because he built his cancer -institute in the same Gau which Gauleiter Greiser governed. Blome stated -his attitude to this plan clearly at the time in the well-known letter -of 18 November 1942. (_NO-250, Pros. Ex. 203._) He discussed the three -possibilities which existed and explained the pro’s and con’s of each of -these three possibilities in detail. These three possibilities were -either “Liquidation,” i. e., the murder of those Poles suffering from -incurable tuberculosis, their internment in isolated institutions, or -lastly, their settlement in a reservation. In his letter of 18 November -1942 (Appendix 25) he definitely rejected the first possibility and -advocated the latter. - -In this, Blome was completely successful. Greiser was so much impressed -by Blome’s arguments that he no longer dared to carry out the -liquidation of the Poles which had been decided upon. In fact, he -submitted Dr. Blome’s memorandum to the Reich Leader SS Himmler, so that -he should obtain a decision from Hitler himself. (_NO-249, Pros. Ex. -202._) This was already a remarkable success for Blome, because Himmler -had already ordered the liquidation of the Poles. Blome’s arguments made -such an impression even on the bloodhound Himmler that, contrary to -Greiser’s expectations, he cautiously put the matter before Hitler again -and obtained his definite ruling. It should be remembered that this in -itself would no longer have been necessary, because not only had Conti -agreed to the murder, but from Greiser’s covering note of 21 November -1942 it is obvious that Hitler had also given his approval to the -extermination of the Poles before. - -Thereupon, after a subsequent examination of the matter, Hitler withdrew -the extermination order and thus Himmler had no alternative but to do -the same. This is clearly proved by Himmler’s letter of 3 December 1942. -(_NO-251, Pros. Ex. 204._) - -The extermination of the Poles did not take place; _this is due to -Blome_. - -Although these facts are incontestably proved by the documents -presented, the prosecution nevertheless upheld the charge against Blome. -This evidently was due to the peculiar wording of Blome’s letter to -Greiser of 18 November 1942. The prosecution in their speech of 19 -December 1946 described this letter a “devilish masterpiece of murderous -intent.” In considering this case, the prevailing conditions should be -borne in mind. Dr. Blome knew that the tuberculous Poles were lost, that -their murder had been decided upon, unless it was possible on some -grounds to change Hitler’s mind at the last moment. The statement of the -witness Dr. Gundermann (_Blome 1, Blome Ex. 8_) proved that Blome at -that time, as is confirmed by Blome’s own testimony (_Tr. pp. 4574-78_), -strove for days for a successful wording of his letter; he repeatedly -drafted the letter, then rejected the wording again, and finally -introduced arguments in the letter which he hoped would be successful. -From the very beginning he was aware, of course, that his intervention -was bound to fail and have no success if he described Hitler’s planned -extermination of the Poles as a crime and downright murder and solemnly -protested against it. In this way Blome would have achieved nothing for -the Poles, but would have had to expect to be brought before a court -himself and sentenced for sabotaging an order of the Fuehrer, or to have -disappeared in a concentration camp without any legal sentence. With -such simple method as entering a solemn protest by calling on the laws -of humanity or of justice nothing would have been achieved with Hitler, -especially when he had already made up his mind and had decided on a -certain matter and had already given the necessary orders for execution; -in such cases Hitler was usually inaccessible and would not listen to -any counterproposals. Dr. Blome knew this, of course, just as well as, -for instance, the Gauleiter of the Lower Danube, who in connection with -a similar problem (sterilization), in his letter of 24 August 1942 -(_NO-039, Pros. Ex. 153_) pointed out the importance of “enemy -propaganda,” as he considered this most likely to be successful. Dr. -Blome therefore looked for reasons which would perhaps have a decisive -influence on Hitler and these were either the Church or other nations. -It is understandable that Hitler, in view of the tense situation at that -time, in the middle of the Second World War, did not want to break -completely with the Church, and he also had to consider the opinion of -foreign countries so as not to antagonize neutral states. Dr. Blome -speculated on these two points. In his letter of 18 November 1942 he -emphasized in a skillful manner, and with full determination, these two -points of view, and with those two references he achieved full success. -(_NO-250, Pros. Ex. 203._) - -It may now be realized why Blome, in the early part of his letter, tried -to give Hitler the impression that he (Blome) fully agreed with the plan -as such for the extermination of the Poles, and why he even pretended -that everything was already prepared for the execution of this plan. -Hitler had, so to speak, only to press the button and 25,000-30,000 -Poles would be done away with. This was merely a trick which Blome used -in order to ensure a favorable consideration of his second and third -proposals (internment or reservation). - -If Dr. Blome had written that he declined to approve such an order of -the Fuehrer, that, in consequence, no preparations for its execution had -been made, and that he would rather resign than become a party to a mass -murder, then Hitler would have had his customary outburst, and Blome -would have been finished as far as he was concerned; he would, of -course, have entirely disregarded the protest of such a “saboteur,” and -in the interests of so-called “reasons of State,” the Fuehrer’s orders -would have been strictly carried out. To prevent this, Dr. Blome had to -pretend for the time being, that he was ready to acknowledge the -Fuehrer’s orders as a matter of course and, where possible, to -participate personally in their execution, if Hitler, as Head of the -State, so desired. However, when weighing the pro’s and con’s, Dr. Blome -was able to bring to the foreground points of view against the plan of -extermination which conceivably might greatly impress Hitler. - -Blome’s letter of 18 November 1942 can only be explained thus, and was -intended in this way. (_Blome 1, Blome Ex. 8._) So Dr. Blome, on the -strength of this letter, cannot be convicted. For it is certain that -Hitler thereupon dropped his plan and completely rescinded his orders -for the murder. - -This success, which could hardly have been anticipated because of -Hitler’s obstinacy and vainglory, completely justifies the defendant -Blome. It proves that Blome’s conception was the right one and that his -manipulations saved the lives of the Poles. - -Another matter helped Blome considerably, which must not be overlooked -here. Shortly before, Hitler had cancelled the continuation of the -Euthanasia Program. Apparently he did this under the influence of -numerous protests which had been made by the two Christian Churches. The -reaction abroad also played a considerable part in this because mass -destruction of the insane had been taken up repeatedly by the foreign -press with particular reproaches against the Nazi regime. Dr. Blome made -use of these points of view which had proved effective in the case of -the Euthanasia Program, and they also produced telling effects in the -case of the tubercular Poles. - -Why did the prosecuting authorities maintain the accusation against. Dr. -Blome in spite of all this? Apparently this was solely on account of an -affidavit by the codefendant Rudolf Brandt. In his affidavit of 24 -October 1946 Rudolf Brandt completely suppresses the letters which cause -the complete rescinding of the plan for murder. (_NO-441, Pros. Ex. -205._) He is silent about these letters, although it can be proved that -they passed through his hands, were initialed, and handed down to lower -offices by him. - -During his examination by the defense, Rudolf Brandt was charged with -untruthfulness. He was unable to offer an explanation, failed to answer, -and was forced to submit to the charge of untruthfulness, of deliberate -untruthfulness. Altogether, Rudolf Brandt has made an amazing number of -affidavits; he has, without scruples, supplied the prosecution with -practically every affidavit desired for the incrimination of -codefendants, and with equal readiness, he has given affidavits for -these same codefendants which directly contradicted his former -assertions. What he confirms under oath today, he denies under oath -tomorrow, and vice versa. However, it must be stated that the affidavit -which Rudolf Brandt made against Dr. Blome, dated 24 October 1946, was -the climax of his mendacity. After the experiences in this trial, and -after having become acquainted, as we have, with a man like Rudolf -Brandt, it would be ridiculous even to consider attaching any weight to -the affidavit of a man such as we have got to know in Rudolf Brandt. His -affidavit of 24 October 1946 has been entirely refuted by documents -introduced by the prosecution. It is unnecessary, therefore, to examine -to what extent Rudolf Brandt’s untruthfulness can be traced to his state -of mental health. - -During the session of 9 December 1946 the prosecuting authorities -announced: - - “The prosecution will introduce evidence to show that the - program was in fact carried out at the end of 1942 and the - beginning of 1943, and that as a result of the suggestions made - by Blome and Greiser, many Poles were ruthlessly exterminated - and that others were taken to isolated camps, utterly lacking in - medical facilities, where thousands of them died.” - -This evidence has not been produced so far by the prosecuting -authorities, although the defense, during the session of 17 March 1947, -referred in particular to this lack of evidence. The assertions of a -Rudolf Brandt in this respect cannot be evaluated as “evidence,” even if -it had not been completely retracted and even if it had not already been -completely refuted by additional documents submitted by the prosecution. -If the prosecuting authorities had succeeded in producing the witness -Perwitschky, who had already been proposed in 1946, and who had been -approved by the Tribunal, then his testimony would have produced -additional clear proof that Blome actually prevented the proposed mass -murder. - -We know that later fate of these Poles who suffered from incurable open -tuberculosis from the affidavit of Dr. Gundermann, the highest medical -officer of the Warthegau (the territory in which the tubercular Poles -were to be liquidated). (_Blome 1, Blome Ex. 8._) The fight against -tuberculosis was a legal task of the Public Health Offices which were -subordinated in the Warthegau to the witness Dr. Gundermann. As a result -of difficulties caused by the war, it was not possible to accommodate -during the war, either in restricted institutions or in a segregated -area, those suffering from tuberculosis; these two possibilities, which -had been examined in a letter dated 18 November 1942 from Blome to -Greiser were therefore out of the question for the time being. (_NO-250, -Pros. Ex. 203._) Therefore, the tubercular Poles were provided for -according to the same legal regulations which applied to tubercular -Germans in Germany proper. Legal regulations notwithstanding, a separate -Tuberculosis Welfare Office, with Polish physicians and nurses, was -established in the various health offices of the Warthegau. (_Blome 1, -Blome Ex. 8._) Therefore, the contention of the prosecution “that the -accommodation of sick Poles in restricted institutions resulted in the -comparatively rapid death of the sick” or, that the transportation of -the sick into a reserved area meant that, “they were left to their fate, -provided with few physicians and with few or no nursing personnel,” is -devoid of application. (_Tr. pp. 757-59._) - -It should be observed, however, that these proposals by Blome (for -internment or reserved areas) did not originate from him, but had -already been discussed during the meeting of the German Tuberculosis -Society in 1937, and went back to proposals which had already been -worked out years before by English research workers in tuberculosis on -instructions from the International Tuberculosis Commission, and which -had been generally approved. (_Blome 14, Blome Ex. 6._) Therefore, even -if the existence of these proposals had been known, it cannot be said -that they contradicted in any way the laws of humanity. According to -widespread views held by the responsible circles, such measures are -necessary if tuberculosis, from which millions die yearly, is to be -fought effectively, and if the healthy portion of the population is to -be protected effectively against the dangers of infection through -incurable tubercular patients. In this case, the protection of the -healthy population against infection appears more important than -consideration for the unrestricted liberty of incurable patients. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - -Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page -NO-247 197 Letter from Koppe to Rudolf Brandt, 3 May 769 - 1942, concerning the killing of - tubercular Poles. -NO-244 201 Letter from Himmler (signed by Rudolf 770 - Brandt) to Greiser, 27 June 1942, - concerning the extermination of - tubercular Poles. -NO-250 203 Letter from Blome to Greiser, 18 November 771 - 1942, concerning the mass extermination - of tubercular Poles. -NO-441 205 Affidavit of defendant Rudolf Brandt, 24 775 - October 1946, concerning the plan to - exterminate tubercular Polish - Nationals. -NO-246 196 Letter from Greiser to Himmler, 1 May 776 - 1942, concerning the plan for mass - extermination of tubercular Poles. - - _Defense Documents_ - -Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page -Blome 14 Blome Ex. 6 Extracts from a report on the German 777 - Tuberculosis Conference of 18 to 20 - March 1937, at Wiesbaden. -Blome 1 Blome Ex. 8 Extracts from the affidavit of Dr. Oskar 778 - Gundermann, 28 December 1946, stating - that Blome opposed the plan to - exterminate tubercular Poles and that - the plan was never carried out. - - _Testimony_ - -Extract from the testimony of defendant Blome. 780 - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-247 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 197 - -LETTER FROM KOPPE TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 3 MAY 1942, CONCERNINGTHE KILLING OF - TUBERCULAR POLES - -The Higher SS and Police Leader on the Staff of the Reich Governor in -Poznan, - -In Military District XXI [Wehrkreis XXI], Journal No. 132/42 g - - Poznan, 3 May 1942 - Fritz-Reuter Street, 2a - Tel: 6501-05 - - Secret - -To the Reich Leader SS, Personal Staff, -Attention: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Brandt, -Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Street 8. -Subject: Poles afflicted with TB. -Dear Comrade Brandt, - -May I ask that you submit the following matter to the Reich Leader SS: - -The Gauleiter will shortly ask the Reich Leader SS for permission to -have Poles who have been shown to be afflicted with open TB admitted to -the detachment Lange for special treatment. This request is motivated by -the Gauleiter’s serious and understandable concern for the physical -welfare of the German people here. For there are about 20-25,000 Poles -in the Gau who, according to the doctors’ opinion, are afflicted with -incurable TB and who will not be fit for assignment to work again. In -view of the fact that these Poles live very closely crowded together, -particularly in the cities, and that, on the other hand, they come in -constant contact with the German population, they constitute a -tremendous source of infection which must be checked as quickly as -possible. If this is not done, the infection of large numbers of Germans -and most serious damage to the health of the German population must be -expected. Today already the number of cases of Germans, among them also -members of the police force, becoming infected by Poles with TB is -increasing. - -Under these circumstances, I consider the solution desired by the -Gauleiter as the only possible one and ask that you inform the Reich -Leader SS accordingly. - - With comradely greetings, - Heil Hitler! - Yours, - [Signature] W. KOPPE - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-244 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 201 - -LETTER FROM HIMMLER (SIGNED BY RUDOLF BRANDT) TO GREISER, 27 JUNE 1942, - CONCERNING THE EXTERMINATION OF TUBERCULAR POLES - - Top Secret - -Reich Leader SS -Journal No. 1247/42 -Reference: Yours of 1 May 1942, P 802/42. Bra/V. - - [Handwritten] XI 2/97 - Fuehrer Headquarters, 27 June 1942 - - Secret - -Reichsstatthalter SS Obergruppenfuehrer Greiser, Poznan -1. Dear Comrade Greiser! - -I am sorry that I was not able until today to give a definite answer to -your letter of 1 May 1942. - -I have no objection to having protectorate people and stateless persons -of Polish origin, who live within the territory of the Warthegau and are -infected with tuberculosis, handed over for special treatment as you -suggest; as long as their disease is incurable according to the -diagnosis of an official physician. I would like to request, however, to -discuss the individual measures in detail with the security police -first, in order to assure inconspicuous accomplishment of the task. - - Heil Hitler! - Yours, - [Signed] H. HIMMLER - -2. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Koppe -3. Reich Security Main Office - Copies for information. - By order: - - [Signature] BR. - SS Obersturmbannfuehrer. - [Initialed] M 25/6. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-250 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 203 - - LETTER FROM BLOME TO GREISER, 18 NOVEMBER 1942, CONCERNING THE MASS - EXTERMINATION OF TUBERCULAR POLES - -Dr. med. Kurt Blome -Deputy Head -NSDAP Main Office for Public Health - - 18 November 1942 - Berlin, SW 68, Lindenstrasse 42 - -To the Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter, Party Member Greiser, Poznan -Reference: Tuberculosis action in the Warthegau. - -Dear Party Member Greiser, - -Today I return to our various conversations concerning the fight against -tuberculosis in your Gau, and I will give you—as agreed on the 9th of -this month in Munich—a detailed picture of the situation as it appears -to me. - -Conditions for quickly getting hold of all consumptives in your Gau -exist. The total population of your Gau amounts to about 4.5 million -people, of which about 835,000 are Germans. According to previous -observations, the number of consumptives in the Warthegau is far greater -than the average number in the old Reich. It was calculated that in 1939 -there were among the Poles about 35,000 persons suffering from open -tuberculosis, and besides this number about 120,000 other consumptives -in need of treatment. In this connection it must be mentioned that, in -spite of the evacuation of part of the Poles further to the east, the -number of sick persons is at least as great as in 1939. As, in -consequence of the war, living and food conditions have deteriorated -steadily, one must expect an even higher number. - -With the settlement of Germans in all parts of the Gau an enormous -danger has arisen for them. A number of cases of infection of children -and adults occur daily. - -What goes for the Warthegau must to a certain degree also hold true for -the other annexed territories, such as Danzig-West Prussia, the -administrative districts of Zichenau and Katowice. There are cases of -Germans settled in the Warthegau who refuse to have their families -follow because of the danger of infection. If such behavior is imitated, -and if our compatriots see that necessary measures for combating -tuberculosis among the Poles are not carried out, it is to be expected -that the necessary further immigration will come to a halt. In such a -way the settlement program for the East might reach an undesired state. - -Therefore, something basic must be done soon. One must decide the most -efficient way in which this can be done. There are three ways to be -taken into consideration: - -1. Special treatment of the seriously ill persons. - -2. Most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill persons. - -3. Creation of a reservation for all TB patients. - -For the planning, attention must be paid to different points of view of -a practical, political, and psychological nature. Considering it most -soberly, the simplest way would be the following: Aided by the X-ray -battalion we could reach the entire population, German and Polish, of -the Gau during the first half of 1943. As to the Germans, the treatment -and isolation are to be prepared and carried out according to the -regulations of tuberculosis relief. The approximately 35,000 Poles who -are incurable and infectious will be “specially treated.” All other -Polish consumptives will be subjected to an appropriate cure in order to -save them for work and to avoid their causing contagion. - -According to your request I made arrangements with the offices in -question, in order to start and carry out this radical procedure within -half a year. You told me that the competent office agreed with you as to -this “special treatment” and promised support. Before we definitely -start the program, I think it would be correct if you would make sure -once more that the Fuehrer will really agree to such a solution. - -I could imagine that the Fuehrer, having some time ago stopped the -program in the insane asylums, might at this moment consider a “special -treatment” of the incurably sick as unsuitable, and irresponsible from a -political point of view. As regards the Euthanasia Program it was a -question of people of German nationality afflicted with hereditary -diseases. Now it is a question of infected sick people of a subjugated -nation. - -There can be no doubt that the intended program is the most simple and -most radical solution. If absolute secrecy could be guaranteed, all -scruples—regardless of what nature—could be overcome. But I consider -maintaining secrecy impossible. Experience has taught that this -assumption is true. Should these sick persons, having been brought, as -planned, to the old Reich supposedly to be treated or healed, actually -never return, the relatives of these sick persons in spite of the -greatest secrecy would some day notice “that something was not quite -right”. One must take into consideration that there are many Polish -workers in the old Reich who will inquire as to the whereabouts of their -relatives; that there are a certain number of Germans related to or -allied by marriage with Poles who could in this way learn of the -transports of the sick. Very soon more definite news of this program -would leak out which would be taken up by enemy propaganda. The -Euthanasia Program taught in which manner this was done and which -methods were used. This new program could be used better politically, as -it concerns persons of a subjugated nation. The Church will not remain -silent either. Nor will people stop at discussing this program. Certain -interested circles will spread the rumor among the people that similar -methods are also to be used in the future for German consumptives—even, -that one can count on more or less all incurably ill being done away -with in the future. In connection with this I recall the recurring -recent foreign broadcast in connection with the appointment of Professor -Brandt as commissioner general spreading the news that he was ordered to -attend as little as possible to the healing of the seriously sick, but -all the more to healing the less sick. And there are more than enough -people who listen to illegal broadcasts. - -Furthermore, it is to be taken into consideration that the planned -proceeding will provide excellent propaganda material for our enemies, -not only as regards the Italian physicians and scientists, but also as -regards all the Italian people in consequence of their strong Catholic -ties. It is also beyond all doubt that the enemy will mobilize all the -physicians of the world. And this will be all the more easy as the -general age-old conception of medical duty practice is “to keep alive -the poor and guiltless patient as long as possible and to allay his -suffering.” - -Therefore, I think it necessary to explain all these points of view to -the Fuehrer before undertaking the program, as, in my opinion, he is the -only one able to view the entire complex and to come to a decision. - -Should the Fuehrer decline the radical solution, preparations for -another way must be made. An exclusive settlement of all Polish -consumptives, both incurable and curable, would be one possibility of -assuring an isolation of the infected. One could settle with them their -immediate relatives, if they so desire, so that nursing and livelihood -would be assured. As regards labor commitment, besides agriculture and -forestry certain branches of industry could be developed in such -territories. I cannot judge whether you can conceive such a possibility -within your Gau. I also could imagine the creation of a common area for -the settlement of the consumptives not only of your Gau, but also of the -districts of Danzig-West Prussia, of the administrative district of -Zichenau and of the province of Upper Silesia. In order to avoid -unnecessary overtaxing of public means of transport, the transfer could -be accomplished by walking. This would be a solution that world -propaganda could hardly use against us, and one, on the other hand, that -would not arouse any of those stupid rumors in our own country. - -Another solution to be taken into consideration would be a strict -isolation of all the infectious and incurable consumptives, without -exception, in nursing establishments. This solution would lead to the -comparatively rapid death of the sick. With the necessary addition of -Polish doctors and nursing personnel, the character of a pure death camp -would be somewhat mitigated. - -The following Polish accommodation possibilities are at present -available in your Gau: - - Nursing Home Walrode 400 beds - Nursing Home “Grote Wiese” 300 beds - Smaller establishments 200 beds - Liebstadt barracks, district of Leslau as of 1 Jan 1943 1,000 beds - ————— -Total 1,900 beds - -Should the radical solution, i. e., proposal No. 1, be out of question, -the necessary conditions for proposals 2 or 3 must be created. - -We must keep in mind the conditions of the war deprive us of the -possibility of arranging for a fairly adequate treatment of the curable -consumptives. To do so would require procuring at least 10,000 more -beds. This figure, under the condition that the program is to be carried -out within half a year, could not be met. - -After a proper examination of all these considerations and -circumstances, the creation of a reservation, such as the reservations -for lepers, seems to be the most practicable solution. Such a -reservation should be able to be created in the shortest time by means -of the necessary settlement. Within the reservation one could easily set -up conditions for the strict isolation of the strongly contagious. - -Even the case of the German consumptives represents an extremely -difficult problem for the Gau. But this cannot be overcome, unless the -problem of the Polish consumptives is solved at the same time. - - Heil Hitler! - Yours, - [Signed] DR. BLOME - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-441 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 205 - - AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT, 24 OCTOBER 1946, CONCERNING THE - PLAN TO EXTERMINATE TUBERCULAR POLISH NATIONALS - -I, Rudolf Emil Hermann Brandt, being duly sworn, depose and state: - -1. I am the same Rudolf Brandt who on 30 August 1946 swore an affidavit -concerning certain low-pressure experiments which were also conducted -with test subjects of the Dachau concentration camp without their -consent. - -2. I am entitled by the same reasons as already stated in paragraphs 1, -2, and 3 of my affidavit of 30 August 1946 to state as follows: - -3. In the middle of 1942 the Reich Governor of the Warthegau, Herbert -[Arthur(?)] Greiser, suggested to Himmler to annihilate Poles infected -with incurable tuberculosis. In submitting this suggestion, Greiser gave -as a reason that the Germans in Poland would be exposed to this -epidemic. Dr. Kurt Blome, Deputy Chief of the Main Office for Public -Health of the NSDAP, and radiologist Dr. Hohlfelder conferred with -Greiser about this matter. Dr. Blome was from time to time with Himmler -and supported Greiser’s suggestion. - -4. The Higher SS and Police Leader, and Chief of the Warthegau, Koppe, -further, Mueller of Office IV of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA), -and the Chief of the Reich Security Main Office, Heydrich, were involved -in this operation. At the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943 Greiser -carried out the annihilation of the Jews in the Warthegau, and the -rounding up of the tubercular Poles was finished at the same time as the -rounding up of the Jews. As a result of the suggestions made by Blome -and Greiser numerous Poles were exterminated. Many thousands of -tubercular Poles were taken to isolation camps where they had to take -care of themselves. - -I have read the above affidavit in the German language, consisting of -one page, and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and -belief. I was given the opportunity to make changes and corrections in -the above affidavit. This affidavit was given by me freely and -voluntarily without promise of reward, and I was subjected to no threat -or duress of any kind. - -Nuernberg, 24 October 1946 - [Signature] R. BRANDT - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-246 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 196 - -LETTER FROM GREISER TO HIMMLER, 1 MAY 1942, CONCERNING THE PLAN FOR MASS - EXTERMINATION OF TUBERCULAR POLES - -Reich Governor of the Reichsgau Wartheland. - - Poznan, Schlossfreiheit 13, 1 May 1942 - Telephone No. 1823 24 - -[Handwritten note] -P 802/42 - - Top Secret - -Personal. -To the Reich Leader SS Heinrich Himmler, -Fuehrer Headquarters. - -Reich Leader, - -The special treatment [Sonderbehandlung] of about 100,000 Jews in the -territory of my district [Gau], approved by you in agreement with the -Chief of the Reich Security Main Office, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, -can be completed within the next 2-3 months. I ask you for permission to -rescue the district immediately after the measures taken against the -Jews, from a menace which is increasing week by week, and use the -existing and efficient special commandos for that purpose. - -There are about 230,000 people of Polish nationality in my district, who -were diagnosed to suffer from tuberculosis. The number of persons -infected with open tuberculosis is estimated at about 35,000. This fact -has led in an increasingly frightening measure to the infection of -Germans who came to the Warthegau perfectly healthy. In particular, -reports are received with ever-increasing effect of German children in -danger of infection. A considerable number of well-known leading men, -especially of the police, have been infected lately and are not -available for the war effort because of the necessary medical treatment. -The ever-increasing risks were also recognized and appreciated by the -deputy of the Reich Leader for Public Health [Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer], -Comrade Professor Dr. Blome, as well as by the leader of your X-ray -battalion, SS Standartenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hohlfelder. - -Though in Germany proper it is not possible to take appropriate draconic -steps against this public plague, I think I could take responsibility -for my suggestion to have cases of open tuberculosis exterminated among -the Polish race here in the Warthegau. Of course only a Pole should be -handed over to such an action who is not only suffering from open -tuberculosis, but whose incurability is proved and certified by a public -health officer. - -Considering the urgency of this project I ask for your approval in -principle as soon as possible. This would enable us to make the -preparations with all necessary precautions now to get the action -against the Poles suffering from open tuberculosis under way, while the -action against the Jews is in its closing stages. - - Heil Hitler! - [Signature] GREISER - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT BLOME 14 - BLOME DEFENSE EXHIBIT 6 - -EXTRACTS FROM A REPORT ON THE GERMAN TUBERCULOSIS CONFERENCE OF 18 TO 20 - MARCH 1937, AT WIESBADEN - - (Published in Berlin, Publishers: Julius Springer, 1937) - -Extract from the report by Dr. Erwin Dorn, chief physician of the -Charlottenhoehe Sanatorium, chief physician of the Tuberculosis Welfare -Center of the Oberamt Neuenbuerg, Calmbach (Wuerttemberg) concerning -Task and Aims of the Method of Treatment and its Application in -Consideration of the Awaited Special Laws for the Tubercular Patients - - * * * * * - -[Page 770] - -In former years, particularly at the beginning of this century, every -attempt at a labor treatment of tubercular patients was condemned as -useless, as only a limited treatment was known. On the other hand, in -countries such as Holland, England, and Switzerland, where treatment -lasting many months is possible, labor treatment was firmly established. -We all know that several months are frequently needed in order to effect -a change by the conservative or radical treatment. Our surgical patients -(plastics, plugging, bilateral pneumothorax, premicectory) also require -a long time until the severe stage of tuberculosis has been alleviated, -and until they themselves again reach full working capacity. In a -similar manner to those treated conservatively, these patients -frequently remain contagious for the rest of their lives. In the -sanatorium they are superfluous, in every day life, useless. But they -should not be regarded as wholly incapacitated for years. - -The aim of the labor treatment for active tubercular people is to fill -this gap between the remedial treatment and full working capacity. It -should be carried out in a work-sanatorium or a settlement. - -Various conditions are necessary to enable tubercular persons with only -a limited working capacity to derive satisfaction from their work. The -right type of work must be provided for them; the work periods must be -graduated according to the amount of work they can handle, and it must -be suited to their capabilities and to what they did in their former -life. - -The place of work and the tools should be satisfactory. _At a -work-sanatorium, in favorable climatic surroundings, these requirements -are best met if the patients are assigned to factory work._ * * * - - * * * * * - -[Page 772] - -In my last year’s report on the forced treatment of tuberculosis -patients, I showed that a patient suffering from open tuberculosis -should remain in a work-sanatorium or settlement until the disease no -longer presents a peril to himself and to his fellow men. - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT BLOME 1 - BLOME DEFENSE EXHIBIT 8 - - EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. OSKAR GUNDERMANN, 28 DECEMBER 1946, -STATING THAT BLOME OPPOSED THE PLAN TO EXTERMINATE TUBERCULAR POLES AND - THAT THE PLAN WAS NEVER CARRIED OUT - - * * * * * - -From the summer of 1940 on I was chief medical officer in the department -of the Reich Governor in Poznan. - -The frequency of tuberculosis in the region of the Wartheland, at one -time incorporated into the Reich, was, according to statistics recorded -before 1939—at the time of the Polish Health -Administration—considerably higher than in the German Reich. When the -administration was taken over, no modern welfare service for -tuberculosis for the whole region existed. Among other things, there -were insufficient beds to effect a successful treatment and the -isolation of tuberculosis patients. The estimates made from the -statistical material of infectious tuberculosis cases amounted to a -round figure of 20,000 to 25,000 people of the Polish population. To -check this tuberculosis epidemic, the authorities immediately began -building 40 health offices with modern welfare centers, as well as -sanatoria and isolation homes with approximately 2,500 beds for Germans -and Poles (the latter under Polish medical direction with Polish doctors -and Polish nursing staff), and these were speedily finished. These -measures by the office of the Reich Governor were supported by the -superior Reich authority (Health Section of the Reich Ministry of the -Interior). - -Since the above institutions were able to check the spreading of the -tuberculosis epidemic to a certain degree, but particularly owing to the -increasing difficulties arising from the war, they were not able to get -the urgently needed sanitary measures running effectively, all the -medical officers of the Wartheland untiringly continued to warn their -superiors and heads of departments urgently of the danger. - -The whole affair took an unexpected turn in the autumn of 1942, because -the Gauleiter and Reich Governor Greiser supposedly said that in case of -necessity he would stop at nothing to check the tuberculosis epidemic -effectively in the Wartheland in the interest of the entire population. - - * * * * * - -I thought it my duty to talk personally to the head of the Department of -Health in the Reich Ministry of the Interior and the Reich Health -Leader, Dr. Conti, in Berlin, about this matter and the entire -tuberculosis problem. - - * * * * * - -As I was unable to get a clear answer from Dr. Conti and could not be -satisfied with such information as I received, I immediately called on -the Deputy Reich Health Leader, Dr. Blome. I knew that he dealt with -special questions concerning tuberculosis in the Reich Health Leader’s -office. From the beginning Blome showed a clearly negative attitude -toward any possible solution contrary to humanity or medical ethics. He -showed me the draft of a letter addressed to Greiser; I asked him to -make a few additions and alterations. - -We discussed the formulation of the letter in detail from the point of -view of convincing Greiser that an intensive continuation of the health -and welfare measures so far taken, and a further extension of the health -program set up for the fight against tuberculosis could effectively -avert the acute dangers. The suggestion for a large tuberculosis -settlement was particularly discussed. This plan was based on smaller -examples, and its final aim was the establishment of a widely spread, -but nevertheless closed settlement for tuberculosis patients and their -families. In this settlement, all modern examination, treatment, -isolation, and welfare facilities should be provided for the patients -and members of their families who might be in danger. - - * * * * * - -Dr. Blome and I having agreed on the tactics to be taken toward Greiser -and on the contents of the said letter, Dr. Blome began, in my presence, -to dictate the draft of a new letter. - - * * * * * - -I concluded that the letter from Dr. Blome to Gauleiter Greiser was -successful, mainly from the development in the fight against -tuberculosis in the Wartheland. The regulation about tuberculosis relief -having become effective for the whole Reich territory on 1 April 1943, a -similar regulation for protection against tuberculosis could be decreed -in the Wartheland in favor of the Polish population. A central office -for the fight against tuberculosis was established under the management -of a specialist. This office gave the same treatment to German and to -Polish cases. - - * * * * * - -During my period in office as chief medical officer in Poznan, until -January 1945, no tuberculosis patients were “liquidated” in the -Wartheland as far as I know. I never received an order for such a -measure, much less brought one about either directly or indirectly. On -the contrary, the office always tried to give all tuberculosis patients -proper treatment. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT BLOME[91] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. SAUTER: Now, Witness, I come to a different problem. It is the -suggestion made at that time that Poles suffering from incurable -contagious tuberculosis should be liquidated. You were interrogated in -January 1946 at Oberursel concerning your participation in the plan for -the extermination of tubercular Poles, and also on 9 and 22 October 1946 -here in the prison. Were the statements you made at that time true? - -DEFENDANT BLOME: Yes. But I must add that concerning this matter of the -tubercular Poles, as far as I recall, I said it was in 1943, while in -reality, as the files now show, it took place in 1942. I must also say -that my letter to Greiser in November 1942 has been shown to me here. I -was asked whether this was my letter, whether I had written this letter. -I said “No.” I said that because it was not a photostatic copy of the -original, but a photostatic copy of a copy. I objected to several things -in the letter and did not acknowledge it at that time. They were -external matters which occasioned me to make that statement. Later, -however, in December, when you took over my case, you gave me this -photostatic copy, and I had an opportunity to study it carefully and -reconstruct the conditions which existed at the time and, therefore, I -now acknowledge this letter as authentic. - -Q. It is true, Dr. Blome, that the prosecution learned for the first -time of this plan to exterminate the Poles through you? Dr. Blome, what -can you say about that? - -A. Yes. The prosecution learned from me for the first time of this plan. -In 1942 I told my interrogator Captain Urbach at Oberursel about it, -after he had described the details of the atrocities which I had not -known up to that time. - -Q. You just said 1942. - -A. I meant 1945. I meant December 1945. I beg your pardon. I do not -believe that the prosecution had any knowledge of this, at least not at -Oberursel. - -Q. Dr. Blome, this whole matter begins with a letter from the Reich -Governor Greiser dated 1 May 1942. (_NO-246, Pros. Ex. 196._) Tell us -briefly who Greiser was. - -A. This was Arthur Greiser, Gauleiter of the Warthegau, the Reich -Governor of the Wartheland, and the Reich Defense Commissioner of the -Wartheland. - -Q. This Gauleiter Greiser, who was a Gauleiter in a district which now -belongs to Poland, sent a letter on May 1st to the Reich Leader SS -suggesting that Poles suffering from tuberculosis in the Wartheland -should be liquidated if the existence of open tuberculosis and the -incurability of the patients were established by official doctors. In -this connection Greiser writes and (this is what I want to ask you -about) I quote, “The increasing dangers were also recognized and -appreciated by Deputy Reich Leader of Public Health, Dr. Blome, as well -as by the Leader of your X-ray unit, SS Standartenfuehrer, Dr. -Hohlfelder.” That is the quotation. What can you tell us today about -these apparently early discussions between you and Gauleiter Greiser? - -A. I talked to Gauleiter Greiser about three times, concerning the -combating of tuberculosis in Wartheland, certainly once in the presence -of Professor Hohlfelder. These discussions go back to the year 1941. I -can recall Greiser once saying that the simplest thing would be to treat -the incurable tubercular Poles exactly like the insane by means of -euthanasia. I pointed out that the comparison was not valid. The Poles, -I also said, were not German citizens. The plan which Greiser was -considering was a radical solution but I could not agree to it. When -sometime later I learned of the so-called Fuehrer order, according to -which the euthanasia action was stopped and prohibited, I considered -this matter and Greiser’s statement as settled. Then the year 1942 was -filled with purely organizational preparation for the tuberculosis -action. For example, all the population had to be registered in card -index files, Germans as well as Poles; preparations had to be made for a -series of X-ray examinations. Then these examinations had to be -evaluated, and so on. The latter was a matter for the state health -offices, that is the National Socialist welfare organization, and the -X-ray unit which was to carry out the technical side of these -examinations. From time to time I had a report from Professor Hohlfelder -about the preparations. Only when all prerequisites were fulfilled, did -I give my approval for such large scale action. The execution of this -action was dependent upon my personal approval. I only took action in -this tuberculosis question in the Warthegau when I received alarming -reports about an alleged liquidation order from Himmler. I learned of it -because at the beginning of November Sturmbannfuehrer Perwitschky came -to my office in Berlin and reported to me that Greiser had an order from -Himmler to the effect that incurably sick cases of tuberculosis found -during the planned examinations in the Wartheland were to be liquidated. -Perwitschky belonged to the X-ray unit and was business manager for the -society combating tuberculosis. Then I immediately reached an agreement -with Perwitschky that I would meet Professor Hohlfelder at Poznan to -discuss the matter and to prevent Himmler’s and Greiser’s plans from -being carried out. I went to Poznan and discussed the matter with -Hohlfelder. We were both greatly astonished at this order from Himmler. -We agreed that this order must not be carried out, and that we as German -doctors could not lend our aid to such an action. We discussed the -manner in which this Himmler-Greiser plan could be prevented. We decided -that I should go to Greiser first of all. I telephoned Greiser from this -conference and said that it was very important that I should speak to -him. Then I talked to him on the same day, or on the next day. When I -asked Greiser whether Himmler’s orders for liquidating were correct, he -said “Yes.” He said he had the order in his hands. I said that I was -willing to prevent this plan in any case and explained why. I said that -in the first place as a doctor I could not participate in this and, in -the second place, I pointed out the political danger connected with such -a crime. - -Then Greiser agreed that I should write a letter for him which he would -pass on to Himmler for a decision. As for Greiser’s letter to Himmler of -May 1942 (_NO-246, Pros. Ex. 196_) which you just mentioned, Dr. Sauter, -I learned of it for the first time from files here, and Himmler’s -opinion concerning my letter of November 1942 I learned of here for the -first time too. Up to that time I did not know about Himmler’s letter to -Greiser. In the letter of May 1942, from Greiser to Himmler, Greiser -writes, I quote, “that Hohlfelder and Blome recognized the -ever-increasing risks and appreciated them.” But he does not say that -Hohlfelder and I approved liquidation. The letter does not say that. My -basic opinion on the problem is the following: Let us suppose that we in -Germany had a valid law for the liquidation of incurably sick persons. -Assuming that such a law did exist, it would, of course, be out of the -question to apply it to non-Germans. Application in this case would be a -crime, especially during war. Germany had occupied foreign territory -and, as an occupying power, had to observe international law in the -treatment given to the occupied territories. As for the problem of -tuberculosis, I had dealt with it for some time, especially since 1935 -when I had incorporated the tuberculosis question into the post-graduate -medical training. In 1937 Professor Janker, Bonn, a well-known X-ray -specialist, called upon me for aid in developing a new procedure which, -with a minimum of cost, would make it possible to examine large groups -of the population. This was the so-called X-ray screen photography which -was developed. I shall give you a brief explanation of this. Previously -for an X-ray picture of the lungs, a film had been needed of 24 by 30 -centimeters. This new procedure required a film of about only 4 by 4 -centimeters. That is, the so-called Leica size. The pictures were taken -with a Leica. The X-ray screen was photographed. The successful -development of this procedure meant that for an X-ray photograph, in -place of the price of from twelve to thirteen marks, which the social -insurance had paid, it now could be produced for about ten pfennigs: -that is, less than one percent. - -The further value of the development of this process was that one would -no longer need several minutes for an X-ray photograph, but this -procedure was developed to such an extent that we could take two hundred -to three hundred pictures per minute. I developed this screen picture -process together with Janker until we reached the results which I have -just described. At the X-ray Congress in May 1938 in Munich I made this -process public and I stated that with its aid one could begin a -large-scale fight against tuberculosis. Only a few people believed my -words at the time, and some smiled pityingly. After this congress, -Professor Hohlfelder, who was later commander of the X-ray unit, came to -me, and working with X-ray science, the optical industry, the film -industry, X-ray industry, screen industry, etc., we developed the -process during the course of that same year to such an extent that in a -short time we were able to X-ray practically every inhabitant in the -whole province of Mecklenburg. The procedure was then gradually -developed until we could easily have X-rayed ten million or more in -Germany per year. Then, during the war, at my instigation, in 1939 and -1940, we X-rayed the population of the whole province of Westphalia; -then in 1941, the whole province of Wuerttemberg, including -Hohenzollern. Now there was the plan to X-ray the people of Wartheland. -Gauleiter Greiser had approached me, because approval had to be obtained -from me, and I gave such approval only if all prerequisites were given, -so that the cases which were discovered could be given some medical and -clinical attention. It had been our experience in these examinations -that one percent new tuberculosis cases were discovered which had -hitherto been completely undetected. For the Warthegau alone, with a -Polish population of four and one-half millions, that would have meant -forty-five thousand new cases of tuberculosis, not counting the ten -thousand from among the one million German population. I had withheld my -approval for such actions because at that time, with the development of -this invention, a plan of irresponsible X-raying was being carried out -by various Gauleiters and by large industries. Everyone wanted to take -up the battle against tuberculosis but that would have been a disaster -unless there had been some check. When whole groups of population were -X-rayed, there had to be the necessary preparation of medical supplies -from the beginning, otherwise there would have been a catastrophe. -Through this action and through these many new cases of tuberculosis -which were discovered, I consciously put the state in a difficult -situation. I forced the state to issue a new law for the fight against -tuberculosis. This law which was issued was the Tuberculosis Aid Law. -This law formed the basis for the lung examination of the population of -the Wartheland which was actually carried out in 1943-1944. This law, it -can be proved, was not only of benefit to the German population in the -Warthegau, but also to the Polish population, as is clearly seen from -the affidavit of Regierungsdirektor Dr. Gundermann. (_Blome 1, Blome Ex. -8._) Dr. Gundermann was the chief medical officer of the Wartheland; -that is, he had the main responsibility for the fight against -tuberculosis in this Gau. - -Q. Dr. Blome, before we go into the letter of 18 November 1942, I should -like to return to the spring of 1942. (_NO-250, Pros. Ex. 203._) We just -heard of a letter from Gauleiter Greiser dated May 1942, in which he -suggests that Poles suffering from tuberculosis should be liquidated. He -writes “that the ever-increasing risks were also recognized and -appreciated by the Deputy of the Reich Leader for Public Health, -Professor Dr. Blome.” - -You said that Greiser does not mention that you approved the plan for -the liquidation of the Poles. I would be interested to know what your -attitude was at that time, in the spring of 1942, towards this plan. Did -you approve of the plan to liquidate tubercular Poles? Did you reject -it? What did you say about it? - -A. In the spring of 1942 I expressed no opinion at all in respect to -this plan. The discussions with Greiser, as I said, were in the year -1941, at the time when the euthanasia action was still in operation. In -1942 I did not talk to Greiser about such a plan at all. I did not know -that Greiser intended to write this letter in May 1942 to Himmler, or -that he did actually write it. I heard about it only here and after -Greiser had made his statements in connection with the euthanasia -action. But the euthanasia action had been stopped by Hitler’s order, -and of course I assumed that such ideas on the part of Greiser were -settled too. I did not approve of his ideas, as I said before. - -Q. Then, if I understand you correctly, you did not deal with this -matter in the fall of 1942 when this Perwitschky brought you alarming -news? - -A. Yes. That is right. - -Q. Can you tell us why Gauleiter Greiser discussed this tuberculosis -problem with you particularly? - -A. The reason was, as I have already said, that the execution of such an -action depended on my approval. If I had said the Warthegau was not to -be X-rayed, then it would not have been X-rayed, no matter what the -Gauleiter did. - -Q. Dr. Blome, Gauleiter Greiser was not thinking apparently of X-raying -but of liquidating. The letter of 1 May 1942, where he makes the -suggestion, speaks only of liquidation. It says nothing about X-raying. -I would like to find out how you became involved in this matter, and -when you heard of Greiser’s plan for the first time, the plan to -eliminate the tubercular Poles? - -A. Of course Gauleiter Greiser was thinking of X-raying; that is -essential for detecting incurable cases of tuberculosis. - -Q. Then, Witness, on the 18th of November you wrote a letter. (_NO-250, -Pros. Ex. 203._) This is the letter which the prosecution has described -as a “masterpiece of murderous intention.” Did you discuss this letter -beforehand with the Reich Physician Leader, Dr. Conti? - -A. No. After I had talked to Greiser I saw Conti for a short time in -Berlin, or I went to see Conti to report to him about the plan and about -my talk with Greiser. Dr. Conti said, “What do you want? That’s an order -from the Reich Leader, that is, Himmler!” Then I told Conti what I had -agreed upon with Greiser, and that I would write a letter to that effect -to be sent on to Himmler. This he agreed to and also to my writing this -letter. But I did not discuss the contents with Dr. Conti. I did not see -any point in doing so. This statement of Conti’s showed that he knew -about this plan of liquidation. - -Q. Witness, this letter which you wrote to Gauleiter Greiser, in which -you opposed liquidation of the Poles, did you write it by yourself or -did you discuss the draft of this letter with anyone? - -A. First of all I wrote the letter by myself. After I had returned to -Berlin from Poznan I had to go to Munich. When I came back from Munich I -wrote this letter. I made various rough drafts. It was not easy. I had -discussed the general tactics with Hohlfelder according to which we -would start right at the beginning of the letter by appearing to agree -to the ideas, but then in the second part of the letter we would list -all the political factors which might induce Himmler and the others to -give up such an action. It was not easy to write such a letter. I -worried about this letter a great deal until I thought I finally had a -right draft. - -In my preliminary interrogation an interrogator asked me something to -this effect: “Why did you not simply give up your office and resign when -you heard about this plan?” My answer is as follows: It would, of -course, have been the simplest thing for me to take advantage of this -opportunity to give up my position. Then I would have had nothing more -to do with the whole matter; at least 40,000 Poles would have been -murdered, and I would not be under indictment today on this charge. -Please excuse me for saying this, but I must say it, when such a charge -is made against me. I will try to speak as dispassionately as possible. -Dr. Sauter had just said that the prosecution considers my letter a -“masterpiece of murderous intention”. I now state the following: Apart -from this questionable affidavit of Rudolf Brandt, the prosecution has -not produced a single document to prove the murder of tubercular Poles -by me. On the contrary, the prosecution has submitted Himmler’s reply -dated the end of November 1942, according to which Himmler, in answer to -my letter, prohibited the liquidation of the tubercular Poles, and this -letter expressly says that my suggestion was to be carried out and that -this matter was to be used as propaganda. In spite of that, the -prosecution makes such charges as these against me. I am accused of -being a murderer 10,000 times for a crime which I did not commit but -which I prevented, as I can prove. I should like to say something else. -The press, of course, has taken up this charge. I cannot hold that -against the press. The consequence of this news, however, was that my -family, my wife and my little children, are subjected to unpleasantness -and even threats. Through this assertion of the prosecution, the name of -Blome has been defamed in a way which it does not deserve, especially if -it can be proved that I prevented the crime with which I am charged. - -MR. HARDY: If it please your Honor, I object to any further comment of -this type from the witness. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Objection overruled. Witness may continue. - -DEFENDANT BLOME: I beg your pardon if I got rather excited. I should -like to conclude my statement by saying that I hope that this case will -be soon cleared up, and that then the press will be chivalrous enough to -state that I not only did not commit this crime, but that I actually -prevented it. - -DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I should like to discuss with the witness the -letter of 18 November 1942 in which the defendant prevented the murder -of the Poles. It will take some time. I believe this would be a good -time to take a recess. - - * * * * * - -DR. SAUTER: Witness, during the morning session you explained to us -among other things the new method of X-ray photography, the so-called -screen photography; you stated that using this new method one could take -200 to 300 photographs per minute. Were you not wrong, didn’t you mean -perhaps per hour and not per minute? - -DEFENDANT BLOME: Yes, per hour. - -Q. I just wanted to correct that so that it does not appear erroneously -in the record. We shall continue, Witness, with the letter which we have -repeatedly discussed, the letter of 18 November 1942, regarding the -extermination of Poles. (_NO-250, Pros. Ex. 203._) It is a letter in -which you define your attitude towards the proposal made by Greiser, -namely to liquidate the tubercular Poles. Do you know the contents of -this letter? - -A. Yes. - -Q. In this letter you made certain proposals. May I ask you to tell us -what suggestions you actually made in that letter? Do you need the -letter for that purpose? - -A. Thank you, I have it. The most suitable suggestion I considered to be -my suggestion to create an area in which one could put the tubercular -Poles, and I recalled the leper colonies well known throughout the -world. I must emphasize that there is a considerable difference between -tuberculosis and leprosy. - -As I made the last draft of my letter, the leading medical officer of -Warthegau was suddenly announced. It was Dr. Gundermann, the highest -state medical officer of Warthegau. He reported that he had just come -from Dr. Conti, and that he had heard rumors from Warthegau that -tubercular Poles were to be liquidated. Dr. Conti had maintained a very -evasive attitude toward him, so he had left Dr. Conti without having -achieved any results and thereupon he had decided to come to me. I told -him that he had come at the most suitable moment, and I explained to him -the position as it had developed in the meantime. I told him of my -conversation with Hohlfelder and with Greiser, and of the letter which -had been decided upon. He was very pleased about it and was also pleased -that I shared his attitude of rejection. I showed him my draft letter -and he made a few suggestions. The number of geographical details in the -letter actually originated from Gundermann. In particular, he emphasized -the importance of a special settlement for tubercular Poles and -recognized this as the most suitable solution. I had already heard of -such suggestions, especially those arising from the tuberculosis meeting -in 1937. During that meeting two well-known German tuberculosis experts, -Dr. Dorn and Dr. Hein, had lectured on tuberculosis settlements. Very -useful experience had been obtained from such tuberculosis settlements, -not only in Germany but also in England. When making my suggestion to -Himmler I explained in detail how such a suggestion could be realized. -In my letter I explained the tactics that were to be used, taking into -consideration the mentality of people like Greiser and Himmler, and made -it appear as though I wanted to agree with their liquidation program. -Afterwards I cited all the political misgivings I had, naming individual -examples. Then I said that in one experiment the people who were -seriously ill and those who were contagious would be segregated, and -that Polish physicians and Polish nursing personnel would be attached to -these seriously ill patients in order to avoid the appearance of a death -camp. Every physician knows, and it is also known in lay circles, that -if one isolates seriously ill people, such an isolation soon comes to be -considered as an isolation for death. That is why I said that the -necessary Polish physicians and nursing personnel must be attached to -these camps. My best suggestion I considered to be the creation of a -colony for all tubercular Poles. - -In particular I wished to point out the following in my letter, I said, -and I quote: “I could imagine that as the Fuehrer stopped the program in -the insane asylums sometime ago, he might at this moment consider -’special treatment’ of the incurably sick as unsuitable, and unwise from -a political point of view.” I mentioned that because Greiser’s -suggestion in the year 1941 pointed to a comparison with the euthanasia -action. In order, however, to be quite sure that these political -misgivings also reached Hitler and that the decision did not rest mainly -in Himmler’s hands, I sent a copy of my letter direct to Martin -Bormann.[92] I furthermore want to point out the following matter. I -said: “I consider any secrecy completely impossible.” In this -connection, I should like to refer to a letter concerning a different -action, namely the letter from the Deputy Gauleiter of the Lower Danube, -dated 1942, which suggests experiments on the sterilization of national -groups such as gypsies. In this letter, contrary to my letter, -completely different tactics are used. The Deputy Gauleiter of the Lower -Danube stated that one must keep such an action very secret, because -otherwise it would have serious consequences from the point of view of -the state. - -MR. HARDY: Is it the intention of the defendant to put the letter he is -referring to in as evidence, or is he merely quoting from his own -letter? - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Can counsel for the defendant Blome advise the -Tribunal on that point? - -DR. SAUTER: This is a letter which has already been used by the -prosecution and thus came to the knowledge of the defendant. Therefore -he can quote it. It is certainly not necessary to submit this letter -once more. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Would counsel please identify the letter, the -exhibit number, and where it may be found? - -DR. SAUTER: One moment, please. Mr. President, this letter was submitted -by the prosecution concerning sterilization experiments. It was -submitted as Document NO-039—I repeat NO-039—Prosecution Exhibit 153. -It is a letter from the Deputy Gauleiter of the Lower Danube district -addressed to Reich Leader SS Himmler dated 24 August 1942. This letter -was already submitted by the prosecution. - - * * * * * - -DR. SAUTER: Doctor, will you please finish your answer? - -DEFENDANT BLOME: In this letter the Deputy Gauleiter of the Lower Danube -district writes to Himmler, and I quote: - - “We are quite clear about the fact that such examination must be - considered as an absolute state secret.” - -That is exactly contrary to the tactics which I used. I say “I think -that any secrecy is quite impossible,” and I give detailed reasons for -this. I will merely give you a short excerpt from my letter. I point out -how many Polish workers there are in the German Reich, and that there -would be questions from their relatives about their whereabouts. Then I -indicate the number of Germans who are related to these Poles. I also -mention that, in the case of the Poles, we are concerned with members of -a conquered nation. I further point out that certain circles would -spread rumors among the population to the effect that similar methods -would be used in the case of German tubercular patients in the future. I -further show that in connection with the appointment of Professor Brandt -as Commissioner General, foreign broadcasts spread reports that Brandt -was no longer concerned with the rehabilitation of seriously wounded -people, but only with those people who had been slightly wounded. I -refer to the reaction which would result in the case of such a crime on -the part of the Italian physicians and scientists as well as the entire -Italian population. I furthermore refer to the Church, and I then say -and quote: “Therefore, I think it is necessary to explain all these -points of view to the Fuehrer before undertaking the program.” - -With reference to my suggestion for a kind of reservation, I say in the -last paragraph of my letter, and I quote: “After a proper examination of -all these considerations and circumstances, the creation of a -reservation such as the lepers colonies seems to be the most practical -solution.” - -Before that I had suggested that these tubercular settlements should be -arranged in such a manner that relations who were willing could also be -settled there. In this way in addition to the necessary nursing -personnel and the necessary Polish physicians, the necessary medical -care would be safeguarded. - -Q. Witness, you previously referred to your suggestions, and you spoke -about a congress on tuberculosis questions in which you participated. - -DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have an excerpt from the record of this -tuberculosis congress. It is a report on the Third International -Congress. It is a report on the proceedings of the German Tuberculosis -Conference dated 18 to 20 March 1937, which took place at Wiesbaden. Two -speeches are reproduced here in excerpt form. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel, this document is found in supplemental -documents? - -DR. SAUTER: Yes, in the supplemental volume. In this report a paper by -two well-known German tuberculosis experts is mentioned, a Dr. Erwin -Dorn, who was the chief physician of a sanatorium for chest diseases at -Charlottenhoehe, and a certain Dr. Joachim Hein, who was the director of -a sanatorium for chest diseases in Holstein. I am not going to read -these papers in detail, but I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice -of them. I submitted these reports of the conference in order to show -that the same suggestions which this defendant, Dr. Blome, made in 1942 -when writing to Gauleiter Greiser, are also contained here in the year -1937, and were made during the German Tuberculosis Conference. These -proposals did not concern foreign tubercular persons, but German -tubercular persons. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does counsel offer this document into evidence? - -DR. SAUTER: It will become exhibit 6, Blome Exhibit 6. Witness, in this -letter of 18 December 1942, about which we are speaking now, you really -dealt with three proposals: (1) special treatment for the seriously ill -persons; (2) most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill persons—that -is to say, separation from the outside world; and (3) the creation of a -reservation area for all tubercular patients in Poland. Now when reading -your letter, one gains the impression—at least one might gain the -impression—that you were speaking in favor of your first suggestion in -the first part of your letter, namely, the “special treatment” of the -seriously ill, which is to say their liquidation as was suggested and -desired by Himmler and Greiser. - -My question is: Why did you not simply state very frankly in your letter -of 18 November 1942 that this liquidation of the incurably ill -tubercular Poles, as suggested by Greiser and Himmler, was a crime; that -it could under no circumstances be permitted, and that you, Dr. Blome, -would have nothing to do with any such proposal? Why did you not write -to Greiser on those lines at that time? - -DEFENDANT BLOME: I think that I already defined my attitude towards that -question very briefly this morning, and I state again, I would have -preferred merely to have pointed out the criminal aspects of this -proposal in my letter, but I knew the mentality of these men, and it was -quite clear to me that the expression of any such point of view could -only have had a negative result. In doing that I would not have saved -myself, and much less 30,000 tubercular Poles—they would actually have -then been liquidated. If I had not wanted to present my true point of -view frankly, I would not have had to think for days about the letter; -it would only have been a matter of five or ten minutes. I would just -have had to dictate the letter and mail it. I had, however, realized, -and it was also the opinion of Professor Hohlfelder, that I would have -to make it appear as if I agreed to the plan if I wanted to have any -success with my counterproposals. I was convinced that the mention of -all the political aspects which might involve danger would be the only -effective weapon. The success of my procedure quite clearly speaks for -the correctness of my tactics. Yes, Himmler really wanted to carry out -this proposal I had made and he wanted to exploit it as propaganda; that -is clearly stated in Himmler’s letter to Greiser, dated the end of -November 1942. The documentary value of my letter can be seen only in -the following: It shows, firstly, that during that period of brutal -thinking, men like Himmler had no time for any considerations of a -humane nature; secondly, only by a clear and definite statement on my -part could the crime of the murder of 10,000 Poles be prevented, and I -was only concerned with that result. - -Q. Witness, the suggestion which you made in your letter was that under -No. 2: the most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill persons. With -reference to this suggestion, the prosecution considers that during the -meeting of 19 December you had the idea of sending these tubercular -patients to institutions and I quote: “That opinion was voiced because -then the comparatively quick death of these patients would ensue in -these institutions.” - -Was that really your intention, and did you think of any such -possibility at that time, that is, when you made the suggestion? - -A. On the contrary I cannot recognize the evidence of the prosecution -regarding that point as being logical. Had it been my intention to let -the patients die, I would not have demanded that they be given the -necessary physicians and nursing personnel. In addition, I want to refer -to my former testimony on this point. - -Q. The other suggestion you made at that time and which is listed under -No. 3 of your letter is the creation of a reservation for all tubercular -patients. During the same meeting of 19 December the prosecution said -with reference to that proposal, and I quote: - - “With this plan, that is, to send all patients into a - reservation and thereby isolate them from the rest of the - population, you, Dr. Blome, wanted to cause these sick Poles to - be left to their fate with very few doctors and scanty nursing - personnel. The aim of liquidating these Poles was to be realized - in this way.” - -What do you have to say, Dr. Blome, to this motive which the prosecution -imputes to you? - -A. This motive is not correct. The contrary can clearly be seen from my -letter. In that connection I may refer to my previous explanation -regarding my letter. Furthermore, I refer to the affidavit of Dr. -Gundermann. (_Blome 1, Blome Ex. 8._) My interest was exactly the -contrary to what the prosecution tries to impute to me, for I was -planning the very same thing for Germany after the war. If I had been -able to carry through such an action, and had been able to show success -in that action, it would have been easier for me later on to refer to -the plans mentioned during the Tuberculosis Congress of 1937 by pointing -out the success I had achieved in the Warthegau. Even today I realize -that until we are able to bring about really effective medical -treatment, or vaccination against the spread of tuberculosis, the only -really practicable and effective solution is the creation of such -settlement areas or reservations. - -Q. Dr. Blome, from your book, entitled “Physician in Combat”, which has -been submitted in evidence in its entirety as Blome Exhibit 1, it can be -seen that for quite a long time you had waged war against tuberculosis. -Can you tell us on the basis of your experiences whether these proposals -which you made in your letter of 18 December 1942—that is, either -housing the sick in tuberculosis institutions, or placing the -consumptives in a reservation area—whether these suggestions were -completely different from the manner of combating tuberculosis as -practiced in various foreign countries up to that time, or, if not -tuberculosis, other infectious diseases of the same importance as -tuberculosis? - -A. Naturally the plan to set up a tuberculosis settlement on a large -scale does not represent anything absolutely new, because, as can be -seen from the documents submitted regarding the Tuberculosis Congress, -such tuberculosis settlements had existed in England and Holland in -addition to Germany, with good results; but, on the other hand, the -realization of this settlement idea would make an enormous difference to -fight against tuberculosis generally. The war difficulties that existed -in 1942 and 1943 did not permit this plan to be realized as suggested by -me for the Warthegau. The fight against tuberculosis continued, however, -in the usual way, as far as it was possible during the war, and as it -was dealt with throughout the Reich for Germans as well. - -In other countries, other experiments were made. For instance in the -year 1935 certain well-known people in the city of Detroit, in America, -made a large-scale experiment for the combat of tuberculosis. After -preparations were made the entire population of Detroit was asked, by -means of enormous propaganda by press and radio, to submit to an -examination for tuberculosis, in order to find out the source of the -infection. The city of Detroit had made the necessary facilities -available for carrying out the examination and a certain success was -obtained. In particular, nearly the whole of the colored population of -Detroit reported for these examinations, whereas the American press, on -the other hand, complained that this was not fully the case with the -white population. - -This action started in 1936 and was continued in 1937. I could not hear -anything about the ultimate results because the war had started. All -actions such as that action in Detroit, and small settlements in the -form of little villages for consumptives, will not solve the entire -problem unless done on a large scale. There is no doubt that the problem -of tuberculosis has not been tackled on a large scale in the world -today. The sole reason for that is that tuberculosis cannot be compared -with any other contagious disease such as diphtheria, cholera, typhoid. -These epidemics have a shorter course and quickly claim their victims. -If that had been the case with tuberculosis the fight against it would -have progressed much farther throughout the world. The tragic thing in -that problem is the manner of the disease itself, the slow tricky -course. That is why, in my opinion, there are nowhere in the world laws -which definitely secure the isolation of infectious tubercular subjects, -although such plans are being considered at all congresses dealing with -tuberculosis all over the world. As far as I know nobody has made a -decisive step, and I think the sole reason lies in the slow tricky -course of tuberculosis, in spite of the fact that tuberculosis is -regarded as having the second highest mortality of all diseases. - -Q. In addition to that letter of 18 December 1942 about which we are -speaking now, did you take any more steps to frustrate the plan of -Greiser, namely, to liquidate all tubercular Poles, and in particular -did you turn to Hitler or Himmler personally in that matter? - -A. No. I did not speak to Hitler at all throughout the entire war. - -Q. How about Himmler? - -A. I spoke to Himmler on various occasions, but that was about one year -later. At that time I had as yet no official relations with Himmler, and -I did not know him. Had this happened one year later, when I already had -official contact with Himmler, and had I known him better, I would not -have written a letter; I would have approached Himmler personally and -would have been able to frustrate the action without having to write a -letter. Having written this letter I received a report through Greiser -very shortly afterwards to the effect that Himmler had withdrawn his -order, and that settled the affair as far as I was concerned. I was only -informed that everything was handled in an orderly and legal manner in -the Warthegau as regards the examination and the registration of -tubercular persons. - -Q. Who told you that this plan had been withdrawn on the basis of your -suggestion? - -A. I heard it from Hohlfelder as well as from Perwitschky. - -Q. These were the two men— - -A. Hohlfelder was the commanding officer of the X-ray unit, and -Perwitschky was the business manager of the association for combating -tuberculosis. - -Q. Did you find out how the rejection of this plan really came about, -and, in particular, do you know that when Greiser’s letter was shown to -him Himmler said that Hitler himself had to decide, and that Hitler -himself actually did decide that this plan was to be rejected for the -reasons which you, Dr. Blome, stated in your letter to Greiser? Did you -hear about that later? - -A. At that time I only learned from Professor Hohlfelder and Perwitschky -that the reasons stated in my letter had moved Hitler to withdraw his -order. I only heard of Himmler’s letter here in this courtroom, through -the documents, and I am, therefore, very grateful to the prosecution for -not having withheld this letter from me. - -Q. Witness, when you say that this plan of Greiser’s was frustrated -because of you, I must remind you of what the prosecution said here on 9 -December in this courtroom. The prosecution said at that time, “We shall -introduce evidence to show that the program was in fact carried out at -the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943 * * *.” And by that, the -program for the liquidation of the tubercular Poles was meant. Further, -“that as a result of the suggestions made by Blome and Greiser, many -Poles were ruthlessly exterminated and that others were taken to -isolated camps, utterly lacking in medical facilities where thousands of -them died.” These were statements made by prosecution. I must again ask -you very definitely, did you at any time later hear that on the basis of -these proposals tubercular Poles were, in effect, exterminated? - -A. No. The assertions of the prosecution are not true. Nothing happened -to one Pole within the framework of this tubercular action in the -Warthegau. On the contrary they received decent medical treatment. - - * * * * * - ------ - -[89] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 247-253, Nuremberg, -1947. - -[90] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 47, pp. -10972-10994. - -[91] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 13, 14, -17, 18, 19, 20, 21 March 1947, pp. 4450-4812. - -[92] Defendant (in absentia) before International Military Tribunal. See -Trial of the Major War Criminals, Vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947. - - - D. Euthanasia - - a. Introduction - -The defendants Karl Brandt, Blome, Brack, and Hoven were charged with -participation in and responsibility for the execution of the so-called -“Euthanasia Program” in the course of which hundreds of thousands of -human beings, including nationals of German occupied countries, were -murdered (pars. 9 and 14 of the indictment). On this charge the -defendants Karl Brandt, Brack, and Hoven were convicted, and the -defendant Blome was acquitted. - -The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on euthanasia is contained -in its closing briefs against the defendants Karl Brandt and Brack. -Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 795 to 813. A -corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on this program -has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant Karl Brandt -and from the final plea for the defendant Brack. It appears below on -pages 813 to 839. This argumentation is followed by selections from the -evidence on pages 842 to 896. - - b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST THE - DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_ - - * * * * * - - _The Euthanasia Program_ - -A. _Procedure_ - -On 1 September 1939 Hitler charged the defendant Karl Brandt and -Reichsleiter Bouhler with the execution of the Euthanasia Program. The -letter of appointment stated: - - “Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M. D., are charged with - the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain - physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that - persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, - upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be - accorded a mercy death.” (_630-PS, Pros. Ex. 330._) - -This document in no way limited the application of euthanasia to insane -persons but included anyone who might be designated as “incurable.” - -The witness Mennecke testified that the program was carried out in the -following way: - -Every German mental institution received questionnaires from the Reich -Ministry of the Interior which were to be completed for each inmate of -the institution and to be sent back to the Reich Ministry of the -Interior. Experts then had to examine the questionnaires after they had -been photostated; they had to express their medical opinion on them, and -had to return them, with their opinion, to the Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft -(Reich Labor Association). (_Tr. pp. 1872, 1873._) - -This Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft cooperated with the “Stiftung” -(Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care), and the Patients -Transport Corporation. The “Stiftung” was in charge of the financial -side of the program, while the Patients Transport Corporation was used -when patients were moved from one institution to another in order to -bring them closer to the euthanasia institutions and finally into the -euthanasia institutions themselves. These three organizations, -Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft, “Stiftung,” and Patients Transport -Corporation, were in fact camouflaged names for the operation of the -Euthanasia Program and were under the supervision of one management. -They did not work independently but together. (_Tr. p. 1874._) - -As to the questionnaires, three experts received photostated copies, -and, independently of each other, they expressed their opinion on -individual cases. Then so-called top experts expressed their opinion. A -list was made up of the patients who were judged subject to euthanasia, -and the patients were removed from the institution to so-called -collecting points, and from there were transferred to euthanasia -institutes. (_Tr. pp. 1877, 1878._) Non-German nationals and Jews were -subjected to euthanasia as well as Germans. (_Tr. p. 1881._) - -The activities of the experts were extended in the early summer of 1940 -to inmates of concentration camps. A doctors commission, which consisted -of doctors and officials from the Euthanasia Program, filled out the -questionnaires on inmates from among those who had been preliminarily -selected by the camp doctors. Numerous concentration camps were visited, -some of them twice, in the period between 1940 and the end of 1941. -(_Tr. pp. 1882, 1883._) Dr. Mennecke, who visited a number of -concentration camps to select inmates, received the orders for these -activities from the top experts in the Euthanasia Program and from the -defendant Brack. (_Tr. p. 1882._) Announcements about these trips were -made from the Berlin agency of the program to the individual -concentration camps. (_Tr. p. 1885._) Non-German Nationals and Jews who -were inmates of concentration camps were subjected to the Euthanasia -Program in extensive numbers. (_Tr. p. 1887._) - -Another function of the Euthanasia Program was the killing of mentally -and bodily deficient children. The witness Walter Schmidt testified that -the agency which handled this part of the program was called the Reich -Committee for Research on Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases -[Reichsausschuss zur wissenschaftlichen Erfassung von erb- und -anlagebedingten schweren Leiden]. The questionnaires were filled out by -the health departments, the chief of children’s clinics, physicians, -doctors, midwives, hospitals, etc., and reports were made to Dr. -Linden’s office in Berlin. Linden was a member of the Ministry of the -Interior. There a committee of chief experts, on the strength of these -reports, decreed euthanasia through so-called authorizing orders in the -form of a photostatic copy of the report, which had been approved in -writing. These activities continued until 1944. (_Tr. pp. 1833, 1834._) -Schmidt himself was in charge of a special department for the killing of -such deformed children. (_Tr. p. 1833._) - -Workers from the occupied eastern territories who had become unfit for -labor were executed pursuant to the Euthanasia Program. Busses belonging -to the Patients Transport Corporation, which were operated by the -personnel of the Patients Transport Corporation, took these victims to -the extermination center of Hadamar, where they were killed. (_Tr. pp. -1842-1845_; _NO-1116, Pros. Ex. 415_.) - -This evidence on the method of carrying out the program is corroborated -by the affidavit of the defendant Brack (_NO-426, Pros. Ex. 160_), the -affidavit of Pauline Kneissler (_NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332_), the chart -drawn by Brack (_NO-253, Pros. Ex. 331_), as well as numerous other -documents in the record. - -The evidence concerning the activities of the top experts and experts of -the Euthanasia Program in the various concentration camps is -corroborated by the affidavit of the camp doctor of the Dachau -concentration camp, Dr. Muthig (_NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497_), who states -that in the fall of 1941, Professor Heyde, as leader of a commission of -four psychiatrists, came to the Dachau concentration camp. This doctors -commission selected inmates, unable to work, for extermination by gas. -Heyde was the first top expert of the Euthanasia Program. (_Tr. p. -2495._) The affidavit of Dr. Gorgass reveals that he and Dr. Schumann, -both of whom were active in the Euthanasia Program, visited the -Buchenwald concentration camp in June 1941. Gorgass states explicitly -that the purpose of this trip was to acquaint himself with the -assignment of concentration camp inmates to euthanasia institutions. -This visit was made on the order of Brandt, and was transmitted by the -defendant Brack. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503._) - -B. _Non-German Nationals and Jews_ - -Non-German nationals and Jews, who were inmates of the concentration -camps, were victims of the Euthanasia Program which operated in these -camps under the code name “14 f 13.” (_NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281._) - -A few documents submitted by the prosecution on one “14 f 13” action in -Gross-Rosen show how the Euthanasia Program operated in concentration -camps. The list of concentration camp inmates of the Gross-Rosen -concentration camp, who were sent to the Bernburg euthanasia station for -extermination, contains many names of non-German nationals and -non-German Jews. (_NO-158, Pros. Ex. 410._) Jews in protective custody, -Poles in protective custody, Jews who were habitual criminals, Jews who -were “shirkers,” Jews who “defiled the race,” Czech “shirkers,” and -Czechs in protective custody were among the inmates selected by the camp -physicians for “examination” by the experts. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._) - -By comparing the names on the lists contained on Documents NO-158 and -1151-PS, it is proved that, of the 240 names listed for extermination in -the Bernburg euthanasia station, at least 51 were of Polish or Czech -nationality. How many of the Jews listed were of non-German nationality -cannot be ascertained from these documents, but a substantial number of -them were born in countries other than Germany, as the list contained in -Document NO-158 shows, and it is therefore apparent that a further -substantial number of the inmates selected for extermination were of -non-German nationality. (_NO-158, Pros. Ex. 410_; _1151-PS, Pros. Ex. -411_.) - -On 17 March 1942, 70 inmates were transferred to Bernburg for -extermination. (_NO-1873, Pros. Ex. 556._) Of these, 27 of the -non-Jewish prisoners on the transport list were of Czech or Polish -nationality. Compare transport list with list of inmates originally -selected in Gross-Rosen. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._) On 19 March 1942 an -additional 57 inmates arrived at Bernburg from Gross-Rosen. (_NO-158, -Pros. Ex. 410._) Of these, 15 of the non-Jewish prisoners of the -transport list were of Czech or Polish nationality. Thus, of the total -of 127 inmates proved to have been sent to Bernburg in March 1942, at -least 42, or one-third of the total, were non-German citizens forcibly -detained in an enemy country. That all of these inmates were -exterminated in Bernburg is conclusively proved by the laconic report -from Gross-Rosen to the Economic and Administrative Main Office that -“special treatment of 127 prisoners was concluded on 2 April 1942.” -(_1234-PS, Pros. Ex. 555._) - -This evidence as to Action 14 f 13 is amplified by the testimony of the -witnesses Neff (_Tr. pp. 600-605_), Kogon (_Tr. pp. 1210-13_), Roemhild -(_Tr. pp. 1634-37, 1641_), and Holl (_Tr. p. 1060_). - -Non-German nationals and Jews other than those in concentration camps -were not exempt from the program, and many of them were killed. Besides -the evidence cited under A above, there is ample proof that non-German -nationals were subjected to extermination from the beginning of 1940 -through the war. (_NO-1135, Pros. Ex. 334_; _NO-818, Pros. Ex. 373_.) -Jews of German and Polish nationality and stateless Jews were also -subjected to the program. (_NO-1310, Pros. Ex. 337._) Polish and Russian -nationals and other non-German nationals were subjected to the program. -(_NO-720, Pros. Ex. 366._) - -The questionnaires had a space provided for “race”, being defined: -German or similar blood (of German blood), Jew, Jewish mixed breed -Grades 1 or 2, Negro (mixed breed). (_1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357._) This -question would have been completely unnecessary if non-Germans were -exempted from the program. Questionnaires had to be filled out about all -patients who were not of German nationality or German related blood, -indicating their race and nationality. (_NO-825, Pros. Ex. 358._) These -questionnaires had to be processed by the experts. (_Tr. p. 1881._) -Those who were active in euthanasia never received an order that -non-German nationals were to be excluded from the program. (_NO-817, -Pros. Ex. 368._) The witnesses Mennecke (_Tr. pp. 1877, 1922_) and -Schmidt (_Tr. pp. 1860-1_) also testified to this effect. Hugo Suchomel, -LL. D., the highest official after the Minister in the Austrian Federal -Ministry of Justice, says in his affidavit that when Brack, as -representative of the defendant Brandt, gave a lecture on euthanasia in -the Ministry of Justice in 1942, he enumerated, as the classes of -persons who were exempted from the program, the war-wounded and persons -who had become insane as a result of air attacks. Foreigners and Jews -were not mentioned among the groups of persons who were excluded. -(_NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557._) Brack admits having held the lecture. (_Tr. -p. 7589._) - -As early as 1939 inmates of insane asylums in occupied Poland were -killed. (_3816-PS, Pros. Ex. 370._) In the autumn of 1940, funds for the -evacuation of 1,558 inmates of mental institutions of East Prussia and -approximately 250 to 300 insane Poles were made available by the -defendant Brack, who was the administrative executive of the Euthanasia -Program. As these transfers were carried out by a special detachment -(Sonderkommando) of the infamous SD, which was used for special tasks, -there is no doubt that these insane Poles were killed. (_NO-2909, Pros. -Ex. 500_; _NO-2911, Pros. Ex. 501_.) In September 1941, an order was -issued that the inmates of the insane asylums in Russia, in the -occupation zone of the German Army Group “Nord,” were to be killed. -(_NO-1758, Pros. Ex. 444._) - -Eastern workers were also dealt with. (_NO-1430, Pros. Ex. 429_; -_NO-1436, Pros. Ex. 430_.) Eastern workers, who had been forcibly -brought into Germany, who were no longer able to work, and who were -considered a burden on the mental institutions of Germany, were brought -together in a collecting institution and, unless they could be -discharged in a matter of six weeks, they were exterminated under the -Euthanasia Program. (_NO-891, Pros. Ex. 414_; _NO-1116, Pros. Ex. 415_.) -Half-Jewish healthy children (_NO-1427, Pros. Ex. 431_) and adult -gypsies (_3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371_) were also killed. - -C. _Inadequate Examination and Lack of Supervision_ - -The selection and examination of the persons who were subjected to -euthanasia were criminally negligent and inadequate. - -The defendant Karl Brandt testified that the doctors in the Euthanasia -Program were given enormous responsibility. (_Tr. p. 2425._) He, -together with Bouhler, had authority over the physicians who were -participating in the program. (_Tr. p. 2408._) He admitted, however, -that he did not make observation in, or visits to, insane asylums. He -was only once in the Bethel insane asylum and visited a special clinic -in Kassel. He admitted having no expert knowledge in the field of -psychiatry. (_Tr. p. 2470._) He, the doctor of the two persons who were -charged by Hitler with the execution of euthanasia (Bouhler was not a -doctor), authorized the doctors to administer euthanasia. He did not -make investigations as to the medical abilities of these men. (_Tr. p. -2476._) He does not know one single name of the total of ten to fifteen -doctors who, according to his testimony, were charged with the execution -of euthanasia. (_Tr. pp. 2478-9._) Brandt testified that he only visited -one of the extermination stations, Grafeneck, in 1940, one time (_Tr. p. -2480_), and never went to an observation station. (_Tr. p. 2481._) In -winter 1939-1940, however, he visited, together with the defendant -Brack, Bouhler, and Conti, the euthanasia station of Brandenburg, where -the first gas chamber was set up. The purpose of this visit was to -observe a test experiment in which four insane persons were gassed. -(_Tr. pp. 7645-6._) - -Victims of euthanasia were condemned to death by so-called top experts -who had never so much as seen the patient. The victims were only -superficially examined on the basis of questionnaires. (_NO-470, Pros. -Ex. 332._) Pfannmueller, an expert, received no less than 159 shipments -of questionnaires, averaging between 200 and 300 questionnaires each, -prior to 15 April 1941, for judgment as to life and death. (_NO-1129, -Pros. Ex. 354_; _NO-1130, Pros. Ex. 355_.) Since his main occupation was -that of manager of an insane asylum, his judgment of the questionnaires -was only a secondary activity. In a period of 18 days, this same expert -passed judgment on no less than 2,058 questionnaires. (_NO-1129, Pros. -Ex. 354_; _Tr. p. 7384_.) - -Questionnaires on patients who were in an asylum for as short a time as -one month were filled out and formed the basis for judgment as to -whether the particular inmate should be killed. (_NO-825, Pros. Ex. -358._) Many of these questionnaires were inadequately completed so that -it was impossible in any event to form a clear medical opinion. Experts -were also exposed to pressure to induce them to give positive opinions. -(_Tr. p. 1881._) Unanimous opinion of the experts was not necessary to -bring about a positive judgment which would condemn the patient to be -killed. The dissenting opinion of one expert did not suffice to save the -life of the patient. (_Tr. pp. 1907-8._) - -In a concentration camp 105 Aryans were “examined” by the expert -Mennecke in an afternoon. The “examination” of 1,200 Jews, which -consisted in the transcription of the reason for their arrest from the -files to the reports, took only a few days. In a letter to his wife, -Mennecke himself put the word “examination” in quotation marks. It is -impossible that any kind of mental examination of the patients was -carried out. (_Tr. p. 1892_; _NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412_.) In fact, these -Jews were mentally and physically healthy. (_Tr. p. 1893._) It was -impossible for Dr. Heyde and his doctors commission, which was active in -the Dachau concentration camp, to examine the great number of inmates -selected in the short time they spent there. The examination consisted -solely in the cursory study of personal records in the presence of the -inmate. (_NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497._) Doctors Schumann and Gorgass -screened approximately 100 concentration camp inmates during a one day’s -visit in the Buchenwald concentration camp. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503._) - -It was not the degree of insanity which was the decisive factor in the -decision as to whether or not the inmates should be killed, but rather -their usefulness for work. The manner of employment, the value of work, -if possible compared with the average performance of healthy persons, -had to be carefully filled out in the questionnaires. (_1696-PS, Pros. -Ex. 357._) Valuable workers were not sent to euthanasia stations. -(_3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365._) - -Patients who had arteriosclerosis, tuberculosis, cancer, and other -disabling illnesses were included in the program. (_3896-PS, Pros. Ex. -372._) “Useless eaters” were starved to death. (_3816-PS, Pros. Ex. -370_; _NO-823, Pros. Ex. 399_.) Persons who no longer had any value to -the state were considered “useless eaters.” It was pointed out that -during the war healthy people had to give up their lives while these -severely ill people continued to live, and would continue to live unless -euthanasia was carried out. In addition, it was stated the lack of food -and nursing personnel justified the elimination of these people. (_Tr. -p. 1906._) Concentration camp inmates were examined as to their capacity -for work and their political reliability and were selected accordingly -for euthanasia. (_NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497._) Questionnaires were -completed on concentration camp inmates who were not insane. (_NO-3010, -Pros. Ex. 503._) Prior to 27 April 1943, Action 14 f 13 encompassed the -execution not only of insane persons, but persons suffering from -tuberculosis, bedridden individuals, and others unfit for manual work. -(_NO-1007, Pros. Ex. 413._) Only inmates who were no longer fit for work -were to be brought before the examining commission. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. -411._) - -In the case of killing of children, a previous consultation with the -parents or relatives did not take place. (_3864-PS, Pros. Ex. 367._) The -defense witness Pfannmueller testified that, after having received -authorization to kill the individual child, he invited the relatives to -visit the child because it was sick. However, he never notified the -parents or guardians that he was going to kill the child, as this was a -top secret matter. (_Tr. p. 7394._) From the documents submitted by the -defendant Brack, it is clear that the parents were deceived about the -purpose of the transfer of the children to institutions where they were -to be killed. It was the business of the medical officers to induce the -parents to send their children to such institutions. To accomplish this, -the parents were told that in the case of individual diseases there was -a possibility of achieving certain successes with treatment. (_Brack 52, -Brack Ex. 43_; _Tr. p. 7717_.) The parents were told that the best care -would be taken of the child in such institutions and everything possible -in the way of modern therapy would be carried out. (_Brack 51, Brack Ex. -42._) From these documents it is clear that the parents and relatives -were not only not asked for their consent in the case of killing of -children, but were deceived in order to make the transfer to a -euthanasia institution possible. A letter from the Reich Committee for -Research on Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases to the -Eichberg Sanatorium shows on its face that, in the case of euthanasia of -children, the consent of the parents was not sought. (_NO-890, Pros. Ex. -443._) This evidence is corroborated by the affidavit of Dr. Suchomel. -(_NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557._) The defendant Brack testified that the -consent of the parents to the killing of children was an absolute -prerequisite. The medical officers who made the arrangements for the -transfer of the children to the killing stations were allegedly charged -with the task of informing the parents and requesting their consent. -This statement is in contradiction to Brack’s own documents, which -clearly show what the parents really were told, as well as the top -secret character of the program. The proof has further shown that -Pfannmueller himself was one of the doctors who had, according to the -decree of the Minister of the Interior of 18 August 1939, to report -deformed and deficient children. (_NO-3355, Pros. Ex. 553._) He himself -testified that he never informed the parents about the fate their -children had to expect. Brandt admitted that in the case of the killing -of insane adults, the consent of the relatives was not requested and -their opinion not heard. (_Tr. pp. 2427-8._) - -There is abundant proof that the German public was horrified by -euthanasia and the manner of its execution. A police report stated: - - “The wildest scenes imaginable are reported to have taken place, - as some of these people did not board the bus voluntarily and - were therefore forced to do so by the accompanying personnel. - There were people who were imbeciles and feeble-minded, and were - said to have other epileptic illnesses as well, and whose upkeep - the state and other public bodies up till now had to provide for - completely, or at least for the greater part. People went so far - as to formulate and disseminate more or less the following - assertion: ‘The state must be in a bad way now or it could not - happen that these poor people should simply be sent to their - death solely in order that the means, which until now have been - used for the upkeep of these people, are made available for the - prosecution of the war.’” (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._) - -D. _General Extermination of the Jews_ - -Personnel active in the Euthanasia Program also took part in the -extermination of the Jews in the East from about 1941 until the -liberation of the eastern territories. Some time in the second half of -1941 part of the personnel, who were until then executing the Euthanasia -Program in Germany, was sent to Lublin and put at the disposal of SS -Brigadefuehrer Globocnik in order to assist in the mass extermination of -the Jews, which was then common knowledge in the higher circles of the -NSDAP. Among the doctors who assisted in the extermination of the Jews -were Drs. Eberle and Schumann, both of whom had been previously active -in the Euthanasia Program in Germany. All of this Brack admitted in his -pretrial affidavit: - - “The order to send these men to the East could only have been - given by Himmler to Brandt, possibly through Bouhler.” (_NO-426, - Pros. Ex. 160._) - -The connection between the “Stiftung” (Charitable Foundation for -Institutional Care) and the extermination camps in Lublin was also known -to the lower employees of the euthanasia stations. (_NO-470, Pros. Ex. -332._) The witness Gorgass stated in his affidavit that Police Captain -Wirth told him, late in the summer of 1941, that he had been transferred -by the Foundation for Institutional Care (which was one of the code -names under which the Euthanasia Program operated) to a euthanasia -institute in the Lublin area. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503._) The SS judge, -Dr. Morgen, who investigated the Jewish extermination program in Lublin, -testified before the International Military Tribunal that Wirth, having -previously carried out the task of removing the incurably insane, was a -specialist in mass destruction of human beings. The office from which -Wirth obtained his orders was Berlin, Tiergartenstrasse, and among the -people who were connected with this operation was Blankenburg. -(_NO-2614, Pros. Ex. 504._) Brack admitted that Wirth was an official of -the Brandenburg euthanasia station. (_Tr. p. 7733._) Brandt visited -Brandenburg in the winter of 1939-40. (_Tr. pp. 7645-6._) The central -office for the Euthanasia Program was set up in Tiergartenstrasse 4, and -Blankenburg was Brack’s deputy in the Euthanasia Program. (_Tr. pp. 7563 -and 7707._) - -The defendant Brack reported to Himmler about these activities on 23 -June 1942, as follows: - - “On the instructions of Reich Leader Bouhler I placed some of my - men—already some time ago—at the disposal of Brigadefuehrer - Globocnik to execute his special mission. On his renewed request - I have now transferred additional personnel. On this occasion - Brigadefuehrer Globocnik stated his opinion that the whole Jew - action should be completed as quickly as possible, so that one - would not get caught in the middle of it one day if some - difficulties should make a stoppage of the action necessary. You - yourself, Reich Leader, have already expressed your view that - work should progress quickly for reasons of camouflage alone * * - *.” (_NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163._) - -The affidavit of Kurt Gerstein, which also mentions Wirth, gives a vivid -description of the terrible way in which the victims were killed by the -thousands by order of Globocnik. (_1553-PS, Pros. Ex. 428._) - -In October 1941, Brack, the administrative head of the Euthanasia -Program, forwarded plans whereby Jews who were unable to work should be -exterminated by gas. He declared his readiness to send some of his -assistants and especially his chemist, Kallmeyer, to the East, where the -necessary gassing apparatus could be easily manufactured. Eichmann, whom -Hitler had charged with the extermination of the Jews, was in agreement -with these plans. Consequently, there were “no objections to doing away -with those Jews who are unable to work, by means of the Brack remedy”. -(_NO-365, Pros. Ex. 507._) - -Kallmeyer, who was charged with the manufacture of the gassing apparatus -and equipment, had been trained for this task in the Euthanasia Program. -Previously he had been responsible for the proper operation of the gas -chambers of the different euthanasia institutions. (_Tr. p. 7743._) -According to Eichmann’s own estimate, four million Jews were killed in -extermination institutions. (_NO-2737, Pros. Ex. 505._) - -E. _Legality_ - -The evidence outlined above makes it clear that the Euthanasia Program -can only be described as mass murder. This Tribunal is not called upon -to define with juridical nicety what a state may lawfully legislate with -respect to euthanasia. The prosecution asks only that this Tribunal -find, as other tribunals have already held, that there was no valid law -in the Third Reich permitting euthanasia, and that the execution of -persons under the guise of euthanasia, with the connivance and -assistance of certain defendants in this dock, constituted the crime of -murder—a war crime and a crime against humanity. - -The first and foremost authority on the legality of euthanasia as -practiced under the Nazis is in the judgment of the International -Military Tribunal.[93] - -These findings draw no distinction between German nationals executed -under the program and non-German nationals. These executions are -described with the word “murders” and constitute war crimes and crimes -against humanity under the Charter and Control Council Law No. 10. This -was one of the principal crimes which led to the judgment of guilty and -the sentence of death against Frick.[94] - -The Review of the Deputy Theater Judge Advocate in the case of the U. S. -_vs._ Klein, Wahlman, et al., held at Weisbaden, Germany, from 8 October -through 15 October 1945 is a clear precedent that the execution of -non-German nationals pursuant to the Euthanasia Program was a crime. -(_NO-1116, Pros. Ex. 415._) - -The defendants were there charged with the execution of some 400 persons -of Polish and Russian nationality, alleged to be suffering from -incurable tuberculosis, at the Hadamar euthanasia station between July -1944 and April 1945. They were not charged with murdering German -nationals and that issue was not considered. After taking judicial -notice of the fact that foreign laborers were pressed for service in -Germany, the reviewing authority held that the killings in issue were a -violation of the international laws of war and of Article 46 of The -Hague Convention. Three of the seven defendants were sentenced to death. - -According to German law, euthanasia was nothing other than murder. -Paragraph 211 of the German Criminal Code, in its old form reads: - - “Whoever kills a person willfully will be punished by death for - murder if the killing was premeditated.” - -In the new form, which was in effect from 4 September 1941 on, the -section stated: - - “The murderer will be punished by death. - - “A murderer is one who kills a person out of sheer desire to - murder, for the satisfaction of the sexual instincts, for - covetousness or other vile motives; one who kills another - maliciously or cruelly, or by publicly dangerous means, or to - create the preconditions for another punishable action, or to - conceal such an action. - - “Certain exceptional cases where capital punishment is not - appropriate will be punished by life sentence.” (_NO-705._[95]) - -For expert commentaries on the legality of euthanasia, see NO-708 and -NO-706.[96] - -The defense witness Hans Lammers, a German legal expert, testified that -the Hitler letter to Bouhler and Brandt was not a law, and that official -legislation was necessary to legalize euthanasia. (_Tr. pp. 2672-2679._) -The Reich Minister of Justice, Guertner, on 24 July 1940, wrote a letter -to Lammers informing him that, as the Fuehrer had refused to issue a law -it was necessary to discontinue immediately the secret extermination of -insane persons. (_NO-832, Pros. Ex. 393._) A copy of this letter was -sent to Bouhler on 27 July 1940. (_NO-833, Pros. Ex. 394._) - -During Brack’s lecture in the Ministry of Justice, referred to in B -above, the legal authorities present were completely misinformed about -the extent of the program. From the remarks of the speaker, the -impression was obtained that only a very limited circle of persons, at -the utmost several hundred, throughout Germany, Austria, and the -Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia, would be affected. The opinion created -was that only very dangerous patients and delirious maniacs who might -injure themselves would be subjected to the program. (_NO-2253, Pros. -Ex. 557._) This obviously was done to quiet the misgivings of the -persons present. Brack, when questioned as to whether, during the -lecture, he gave an approximate number of persons who would be subjected -to euthanasia, could or would not give any answer. Contrary to the -impression created during the conference in the Ministry of Justice, the -defendants Brandt and Brack now admit that about 50,000 to 60,000 people -were killed in the Euthanasia Program in Germany and Austria alone. -(_Tr. p. 2465_; _Tr. p. 7610_.) - -Since the end of the war, German and Austrian courts have repeatedly -held that the killing of persons of any nationality under the guise of -euthanasia was in violation of the German Criminal Code and punishable -as murder. The witnesses Schmidt and Mennecke who testified before this -Tribunal had themselves been convicted by a German court for -participation in the Euthanasia Program and sentenced to life -imprisonment and death, respectively. - - * * * * * - -The Court of Assizes in Berlin, at the session on 25 March 1946, found -the defendants Hilde Wernicke and Helene Wieczorek guilty of murder and -sentenced them to death. - - * * * * * - -The Court of Appeals in the same case rejected the appeals of both, -defendants. The following quotation from the findings may be of -interest: - - * * * * * - - “_It cannot be mistaken that the defendants Wernicke and - Wieczorek are only the last links of a long chain, and that they - are preceded by persons whose guilt is still greater._” - [Emphasis added.] (_NO. 447_[97]). - -Thus it is established that euthanasia was murder according to German -law. - -In connection with this question, it is again pointed out that the whole -program was kept completely secret. Hitler’s letter of 1 September 1939 -(_Tr. p. 1516_) marked “Top Secret” was never published, and the -Minister of Justice received a copy of it only one year after its -issuance. (_630-PS, Pros. Ex. 330._) Transfers of inmates of insane -asylums to euthanasia stations were allegedly carried out by the order -of the Reich Defense Commissioner. (_NO-1133, Pros. Ex. 335._) The -officials active in the program had to sign a written oath of secrecy. -(_NO-1312, Pros. Ex. 338_; _NO-1311, Pros. Ex. 339_.) The doctors who -performed euthanasia were warned that they would be severely punished if -they sabotaged the work. (_Tr. p. 1894._) The whole program of -euthanasia was to be kept secret, as they were told from the beginning -that it was a top secret matter. The reason given was to avoid unrest -among the population. Breach of secrecy was considered sabotage. (_Tr. -p. 1923._) Others had to sign a written oath binding them to secrecy. It -was known that the result of breach of this oath was confinement in a -concentration camp. (_Tr. p. 1826._) - -F. _Personal Responsibility of Karl Brandt_ - -Brandt was put in charge of the program, together with Bouhler, by the -above-quoted letter of Hitler of 1 September 1939. His position as -highest authority in the Euthanasia Program is outlined in the affidavit -of Dr. Boehm, one of the oldest members of the NSDAP. When, in November -1940, Boehm approached Martin Bormann[98] with the request to obtain an -audience with Hitler to complain about the execution of the Euthanasia -Program, Bormann referred him to Brandt as the responsible authority for -the execution of euthanasia. As a result, Boehm had a discussion with -Brandt and when he complained, among other things, that the Euthanasia -Program was not regulated by law and should not be carried out in a -secret manner, Brandt admitted that the Minister of Justice, Guertner, -had also urged legislation. From his conversation with Bormann and -Brandt, Boehm was sure that Brandt was the leading personality in the -program. (_NO-3059, Pros. Ex. 558._) Brandt admitted that it was -necessary to set up a special organization to carry out euthanasia. -(_Tr. p. 2407._) - -He, together with Bouhler, had authority over the physicians who were -participating in this program, and furthermore he had to keep Hitler -informed from the medical point of view (_English translation is -garbled, therefore reference is made to German Tr. p. 2420_) and had to -maintain contact with Bouhler. (_Tr. p. 2408._) He further admitted that -authorizations for the killing of children were submitted to him and -Bouhler. (_Tr. p. 2544._) - -He stated that he resigned his job some time in 1942. (_Tr. p. 2433._) -While this is of no material significance, it is established that he -held his position as the leading figure in the program until 1944. Dr. -Ludwig Sprauer, in his affidavit, stated: - - “I heard the name of Professor Dr. Karl Brandt for the first - time at a conference in Berlin in the middle of 1941. At this - conference I learned that Karl Brandt and Philipp Bouhler were - the leading figures in the Euthanasia Program. The conference - was called by Dr. Linden on behalf of the Department of the - Interior, and problems of institutions and asylums were - submitted. Dr. Linden directed the proceedings. - - “To the best of my knowledge and belief, Philipp Bouhler as well - as Professor Dr. Karl Brandt were the leading figures in this - so-called Euthanasia Program from 1941 to the collapse of - Germany. - - “The connection between the Department of the Interior and - Professor Karl Brandt, in the framework of the Euthanasia - Program, was that Karl Brandt gave orders to Conti and Linden, - which were passed on by these persons on behalf of the - Department of the Interior. Brandt was the dominating figure - without doubt.” (_NO-818, Pros. Ex. 373._) - -The witness Wesse said in his affidavit that Brandt was in charge of the -Euthanasia Program at least until March 1944. (_NO-1428, Pros. Ex. -432._) - -The witness Mennecke testified that he learned in the beginning of 1941 -that the defendant Brandt was active in the Euthanasia Program. (_Tr. p. -1874._) He further testified: - - “When, in 1944, I was treated as a patient in the army hospital - at St. Blasien, I found out through conversations with officers - that Professor Brandt had an essential part in the collection of - insane persons in the area of Lublin, Poland.” (_Tr. p. 1903._) - -He further testified, in connection with this Lublin action, that it -must have continued up to 1944 and that it was said that insane persons -and Jews were collected in Lublin in large numbers. (_Tr. p. 1904._) - -The witness Schmidt testified that Professor Brandt had the medical -direction of the program, and only in 1944 was he told that Brandt had -left the program. (_Tr. p. 1825._) He also knew that Brandt played the -leading part in the task which had to be accomplished (Euthanasia -Program), that he (Brandt) was to accomplish this task. (_Tr. p. 1847._) - -Both witnesses, Schmidt and Mennecke, also testified that the chart -(_NO-253, Pros. Ex. 331_), which shows Brandt in the center of the -program, is correct. (_Tr. pp. 1833, 1876._) - -The evidence shows further that Brandt gave orders in the Euthanasia -Program as late as July 1943. In a letter from the Patients Transport -Corporation, dated 20 July 1943, to the Mental Institution -Hadamar—which was, as documents and testimony show, an extermination -station—the following sentences are found: - - “I order transfer of insane persons to your institution also, by - order of Professor Brandt, the Commissioner General of the - Fuehrer for Medical and Health Service. You will get, on 26 July - 1943, 150 insane women from the Mental Institution Warstein if - the Reichsbahn will furnish the necessary cars as requested.” - (_NO-892, Pros. Ex. 442._) - -Brandt was the person who had to be approached if one were to save a -child from euthanasia. In a letter from the Reich Committee for Research -on Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases, dated 16 November -1943, to Dr. Schmidt’s sanatorium, Eichberg (as the evidence shows, a -killing station for deficient children), we find the sentence: - - “On the basis of a letter directed to Professor Dr. Brandt - concerning the above mentioned, I request an elaborated - diagnosis about the mentioned Anna Gasse who is reported to be - in your institution at present.” - -And further: - - “If from a medical point of view such a release is warranted, - one could take into consideration whether one should not perhaps - comply with such a request in the interest of the good - reputation of the institution.” (_NO-890, Pros. Ex. 443._) - -That the defendant Karl Brandt was in a position to issue instructions -and assign tasks to insane asylums in Germany is further corroborated by -the affidavit of the defendant Rose, who said that in 1943 Brandt put an -insane asylum in Thuringia at his disposal and made arrangements that -this institution would not be converted into a general hospital; and -further, that in 1944 Brandt made arrangements for the better feeding of -inmates of this asylum in order to enable Rose to proceed with his -malaria therapy. (_Tr. p. 1717._) If this statement in itself has -nothing to do with euthanasia, it shows the scope of influence and power -Brandt still commanded over insane asylums in 1943 and 1944. (_NO-872, -Pros. Ex. 408._) - -According to his own testimony, Brandt was in charge of euthanasia until -1942. (_Tr. p. 2433_; _Tr. p. 2532_.) There is no proof, other than his -own statement, that he resigned his commission at that time. On the -contrary, the proof has shown that he was active in this field until -some time in 1944. In any event, the program was criminal in its -inception. The murder of concentration camp inmates pursuant to -euthanasia began as early as 1940. Non-German nationals were included in -substantial numbers. Healthy Jews were exterminated without examination. -Trained killers from euthanasia stations were sent to the East as early -as 1941 to aid in the mass murder of Jews. Persons whose only crime was -physical inability to work were subjected to euthanasia from the very -beginning. Indeed, the elimination of “useless eaters” was the principal -rationale of the whole program. - -Brandt stated that an order existed which exempted non-German nationals, -but he was unable to give any explanation as to how this order operated, -who received it, and why, if such an order existed, questionnaires for -foreign nationals were filled out at all. (_Tr. pp. 2499-2503._) The -evidence has shown that non-German nationals were never exempted and -were killed in large numbers. There is nothing to be said in mitigation -for Brandt. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST - DEFENDANT BRACK_ - - * * * * * - -_Moral and Humanitarian Justification_ - -In the brief against Karl Brandt the prosecution has summarized the -overwhelming proof that euthanasia, far from being “an act of grace”, -was a measure to eliminate “useless eaters” and other “undesirable” -persons. Brack himself, when questioned by the Tribunal, was unable to -explain why war veterans of the First World War (1914-18) were exempted -from this “act of grace.” (_Tr. pp. 7650, 7664._) Contrariwise, he could -not explain why this grace was extended to insane criminals, -irrespective of the length of time they had spent in an insane asylum. -(_NO-825, Pros. Ex. 358._) - -Brack personally reprimanded Mennecke, who was an expert in the -Euthanasia Program, on the ground that his expert opinions were far too -soft and did not recommend euthanasia as often as he desired. (_Tr. pp. -1881, 1907._) The so-called “observation stations” where the patients, -according to Brack’s statement, were examined for several weeks by -expert doctors were nothing but collecting points for the victims. (_Tr. -pp. 1822, 1878, 1879._) - -Brack admitted that the work of Binding and Hoche is considered the -standard work on euthanasia. (_Tr. p. 7633._) This work leaves no doubt -that the will to live, of even those who are most seriously ill, suffer -most gravely, and are of least use, should be fully respected, and that -any authority for the annihilation of life is excluded in cases where -the will to live must be broken. (_NO-2893, Pros. Ex. 496._) Brack -himself admitted that euthanasia is inadmissible in cases where the -patient has the will to live. (_Tr. p. 7701._) The witness Schmidt -testified that the victims, who obviously knew or suspected their fate, -had to be _forced_ to enter the busses which took them to the -extermination stations. (_Tr. pp. 1856, 1861._) This evidence is -corroborated by documentary proof. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._) While many -of those victims may have been insane, they certainly did not lack the -will to live. Moreover, Brack himself admitted, when questioned by the -Tribunal, that Bouhler ordered that the arrangements for the killing had -to be made in such a way that the patients would not realize what was -being done to them. (_Tr. p. 7660._) The gas chambers where the victims -were annihilated resembled shower rooms. (_Tr. p. 7659._) The patients -were deceived into thinking that they were to take a shower bath and, -therefore, had to undress. (_Tr. pp. 7644, 7660._) Such precautions -would certainly not have been necessary if the victims had desired the -“privilege of a mercy death.” - -_Action 14 f 13_[99] - - * * * * * - -If the testimony of Brack and Brandt as to the number of doctors who -were active in the Euthanasia Program is correct, it is clear from the -record that all doctors active in this program collaborated in Action 14 -f 13. Brandt estimated the number of doctors who were charged with the -execution of the Euthanasia Program as 10 to 15 (_Tr. p. 2478_), Brack, -as 12 to 15. (_Tr. p. 7573._) Mennecke testified that about 15 doctors -from the Euthanasia Program were commissioned to carry out the -“examinations” in the concentration camps. (_Tr. p. 1891._) - -Brack was unable to explain how it came about that concentration camps -inmates selected in Action 14 f 13 were killed in euthanasia stations. -(_Tr. p. 7541._) - - * * * * * - -_Legality_ - - * * * * * - -Even Brack’s own documents reveal that he misinformed the legal -authorities about the legal situation in respect to the Euthanasia -Program. The ministerial director in the Reich Ministry of Justice, Karl -Engert, states in his affidavit (which, according to the defense counsel -of Brack, is “of great interest because it shows the opinion of the -influential jurists on this question”): “Brack’s statements reassured me -because, according to them, it was to be definitely assumed that a Reich -law would then be enacted in the customary form, i. e., by publication -in the Reich Law Gazette. I saw no reason why any difficulties should -arise.” (_Brack 37, Brack Ex. 37._) Needless to say, Brack did not -mention that Hitler had refused to issue such a law until after the war. - -That Brack was well aware of the fact that the Euthanasia Program was a -criminal one is proved by his attempt to destroy evidence prior to the -occupation of Germany by the Allies. The affidavit of Claussen proves -that he sent the following teletype to the commandant of the -concentration camp at Mauthausen (_NO-2429, Pros. Ex. 498_): - - “To the Concentration Camp Mauthausen, SS Standartenfuehrer - Ziereiss. - - “Hartheim must be destroyed immediately. Execution must be - reported by order of the Fuehrer. - - [Signed] OBERFUEHRER BRACK” - -Brack admitted that Hartheim was a euthanasia station where the victims -of the Euthanasia Program were killed. (_Tr. p. 7714._) - -_General Extermination of the Jews_ - - * * * * * - -That the defense of Brack is fabricated is proved by other evidence in -the record. SS judge, Dr. Morgen, who investigated the criminal case of -Wirth, testified before the International Military Tribunal that when -Wirth took over the mass extermination of the Jews, he was already a -specialist in the extermination of human beings. He had previously -carried out the task of annihilating the insane. He had received this -assignment from the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, Bouhler’s office. A -system which Wirth had devised in his activities in the Euthanasia -Program made it possible to exterminate large numbers of people with the -help of only a few assistants. The same system, with a few improvements, -was employed for the extermination of the Jews. Wirth’s assignment for -the extermination of the Jews came from Bouhler’s office, from the very -office where Brack was active. Morgen investigated Wirth’s mail and -found out that the courier who brought this mail came from the Fuehrer’s -Chancellery, Tiergartenstrasse, the place where the office of the -Euthanasia Program was located. Among the people connected with this -extermination program, Morgen remembers Blankenburg, Brack’s deputy. -(_NO-2614, Pros. Ex. 504._) Brack admitted that Wirth was active in the -Euthanasia Program. (_Tr. p. 7733._) It may well be that Morgen started -his investigations in July 1943[100] but by the affidavit of Gorgass, it -is proved that Wirth received his assignment from the “Foundation”, one -of the camouflaged societies of the Euthanasia Program, as early as the -summer of 1941. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503._) - -This evidence is fully corroborated by the affidavit of Gerstein. -Globocnik was in charge of the extermination camps near Lublin, and -Wirth collaborated with him in the extermination of the Jews. The gas -chambers were camouflaged as “bath and inhalation” rooms and called -“Foundation” Heckenholt. Doctors’ commissions toured the towns and -villages of Poland and Czechoslovakia in order to select persons for -extermination. (_1553-PS, Pros. Ex. 428._) Brack when questioned by the -Tribunal, admitted that the gas chambers of the euthanasia stations -where the victims of the Euthanasia Program were killed were camouflaged -as “shower rooms”. (_Tr. p. 7659._) “Foundation” was one of the code -names under which the Euthanasia Program operated. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex. -503._) The similarity between the extermination arrangement in the -euthanasia stations and that used by Globocnik and Wirth is not -coincidental. - -The proof has shown that Brack himself advanced plans for the mass -extermination of the Jews. In the beginning of October 1941 Brack had a -conference with Eichmann from the Reich Security Main Office of the SS -and Wetzel of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Territories on the -“solution of the Jewish question”. (_NO-997, Pros. Ex. 506._) Brack -declared himself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of the -necessary gas chambers and gassing apparatus for the extermination of -all Jews who were unfit to work. Since the manufacture of this apparatus -was easier to accomplish in the East, Brack agreed to send some of his -collaborators, and especially his chemist, Kallmeyer, there for this -purpose. Brack proposed outright extermination of all Jews who were -unable to work. Since Eichmann, whom Hitler had charged with the -solution of the Jewish question, was in agreement with Brack’s -proposals, no objection was voiced against the extermination of those -Jews who were unable to work with the “Brack remedy”. (_NO-365, Pros. -Ex. 507._) Kallmeyer was the technical expert on operation of the gas -chambers in the euthanasia station. (_Tr. p. 7743._) - - * * * * * - - c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT - KARL BRANDT_ - - _Euthanasia_ - -_Position taken in the indictment_ - - * * * * * - -_Position of the defense_ - -The aim of euthanasia was to solve an old medical problem. - - Statement of Karl Brandt according to which the subject of - “useless eaters” was never mentioned in the presence of Karl - Brandt. (_Tr. pp. 2397, 2434._) - - Statement of Schmidt according to which the ethical points of - view were stressed during the conference of the experts in - Berlin, 1941. (_Tr. p. 1852._) - - Statement of Mennecke according to which medical motives were - given at the informative conference. (_Tr. p. 1906._) - - Statement of Brack regarding what was involved was the solution - of the old medical problem. (_Tr. p. 7544._) - -The ethical aims of the euthanasia planned can also be seen from the -drafts of a final bill of law. - - Statement of Lammers in which the witness compiled a draft - according to medical and ethical points of view. (_Tr. p. - 2683._) - - Statement of Brack stating that Bouhler worked out a draft in - cooperation with Brack based on scientific contributions. The - heading “Law relating to the granting of ultimate medical - assistance to incurable persons” shows the characteristic - features of the law. (_Tr. p. 7581._) - -The peculiar individual attitude of Karl Brandt is of an ethical nature. - - Affidavit of Schwerin-Krosigk, according to which Pastor - Bodelschwingh, chief of the mental institutions of Bethel, - declared that Karl Brandt had stated his point of view as - regards euthanasia in a respectful way, making every allowance - for the contrary opinion of Bodelschwingh. (_Karl Brandt 26, - Karl Brandt Ex. 83._) - - Affidavits of Pastor Woermann. The witness, successor of Pastor - Bodelschwingh, said that Bodelschwingh had told him about the - idealistic attitude of Karl Brandt and said that Karl Brandt had - supported euthanasia for the fully extinct spirit. (_Karl Brandt - 23, Karl Brandt Ex. 19._) - - Affidavit of Rueggeberg. The witness reported on a radio - interview of the London radio commentator Robert Graham with - Pastor Bodelschwingh in the summer of 1945. Bodelschwingh - himself declared there that one should not consider Karl Brandt - as a criminal but as an idealist. (_Karl Brandt 19, Karl Brandt - Ex. 16._) - - Affidavit of Rach. According to the statement of this witness, - Bodelschwingh visited Karl Brandt at his house in Berlin as late - as the summer of 1943 and spent an afternoon there in a friendly - discussion. (_Karl Brandt 6, Karl Brandt Ex. 7._) - -Suspension of euthanasia in August 1941. - - Affidavit of Kirchert. According to this statement euthanasia - was stopped in the summer of 1941 although at that time economic - reasons had become rather more important than before. The - statement of the prosecution admits with certain limitations - that euthanasia had been stopped in August 1941. (_Karl Brandt - 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15_; _Tr. p. 1752_.) - -Special responsibility and participation of Karl Brandt. - - The authorization of 1 September 1939 was founded on a purely - medical point of view, namely euthanasia for incurable persons - “under _most_ careful scrutiny of their state of illness.” An - economic or political motive as the basis is therewith rejected. - The drafts for a law for further implementation of the - euthanasia idea also show medical and ethical motives. - - The report sheets and memorandum slips were sent to mental - institutions _only_, which proves that euthanasia was - practically restricted to insane persons. Had the elimination of - “useless eaters” been the aim, this restriction would have been - meaningless for there were “useless eaters” in other places too - (nursery homes for cripples, hospitals, etc.). Undesirable - foreigners were rarely to be found in mental institutions at the - start of the Euthanasia Program since aliens entered the area of - the Reich only with the beginning of the allocation of foreign - labor. - - The suspension of euthanasia in August 1941 argues against the - intention to eliminate “useless eaters”, for only from that time - on economic reasons of that kind acquired a certain importance. - - The transfer of sick persons by order of the Reich Defense - Commissioner did not point to a special war interest but was an - administrative and local measure in order to evade difficulties - as regards competence. The Reich Defense Commissioner was a new - regional administrative office which made it possible to combine - the various offices without regard to their competencies for the - different tasks. It seems possible that it was only a - camouflage. The blank draft contains contradictions, for - according to that draft the director of a mental institution - gives directives to the general public prosecutor and refers to - a decree of the Reich Defense Commissioner. (_NO-841, Pros. Ex. - 360._) - - The motive of elimination of “useless eaters” appears only in - the subsequent statements of the ideological opponents as a - propaganda measure of the resistance movement where a symptom is - passed off as a motive. At the conferences, no economic reason - was given for the euthanasia measures; but this was mentioned - only as a secondary phenomenon. - - The attitude of Karl Brandt himself was proved by the statements - of Bodelschwingh as the authoritative leader in matters of - medical and nursery treatment among convinced Christians. - Bodelschwingh’s attitude towards Karl Brandt would be - inconceivable if he had enforced the liquidation of all - undesirable sick persons. (_Karl Brandt 115, Karl Brandt Ex. - 91._) - -The statement in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal is -subject to revision on the grounds of the evidence material of this -trial. - - _Legal Foundation of Medical Euthanasia_ - -_Position taken in the indictment_ - - * * * * * - -_Position of the defense_ - -The authorization of 1 September 1939 was a sufficient legal basis. -(_630-PS, Pros. Ex. 330._) The form of the authorization was sufficient. - -The sheet with the golden eagle chosen for that purpose shows the -special importance of the authorization. - -No recipient was mentioned to whom the authorization in the form of a -letter may have been addressed. (_Tr. p. 2396._) - - Karl Brandt took part in working out the text by inserting the - words “under the most careful scrutiny of their state of - illness.” - - Statement of Lammers, expert in constitutional law. (_Tr. p. - 2678-9._) According to that document the form chosen was not - usual, but such violation did occur and flaws were adjusted. - Hitler did not care about the form. - - Statement of Lammers, stating that Hitler as the Fuehrer was - authorized to alter the form: “I thought him authorized to do - such things.” Apart from the form of the authorization which is - on hand here, there existed still another version. (_Tr. p. - 2686._) - - Statement of Pfannmueller. According to this document, the - authorization contained the passage: “To the Reich Minister of - the Interior.” The document was of a different form from the - authorization in question. (_Tr. p. 7362._) - - Affidavit of Kirchert. Grawitz told the witness that there - existed an authorization with the additional signature of - Goering as the Chairman of the Reich Defense Council. (_Karl - Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15._) - - Statement of Mennecke. At the conference in 1940 the law was - read _word by word_. (_Tr. p. 1921._) - - File note of the Gauleitung of Franconia dated 1 April 1940, - “The Fuehrer gave the order, the law is made.” (_D-906, Pros. - Ex. 376._) - - Publication of the authorization was not necessary for its - coming into force. - - Statement of Lammers says that there existed legal provisions - which had not been published. (_Tr. p. 2689._) - - Affidavit of the Regional Bishop Wurm. Conti told the witness - that there existed a law that had not been published for - political reasons. (_Karl Brandt 25, Karl Brandt Ex. 82._) - - The _obligation of secrecy_ does not prove the illegality of - euthanasia. - - Statement of Brack. The offices were informed. The decree of 1 - September 1939 was transmitted to the Reich Minister of Justice - on 27 August 1940, according to his special wish, but he had - been informed of it earlier. (_Tr. p. 7689._) - - Statement of Pfannmueller. The witness states that the - obligation of secrecy was usual. “I was bound to keep Reich - matters secret. I was bound with regard to the Reich Penal - Code.” (_Tr. pp. 7343, 7397._) - - Statement of Schmidt. The witness says that an ordinary - obligation of secrecy form was signed without a special threat - of punishment. - -_Camouflage._ - - Files of the Gauleitung of Franconia concerning correspondence - with Marie Kehr. According to this, instructions were given - after they were convinced of her good sense. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. - 376._) - - Book of Meltzer: “The Problem of Abbreviation of Worthless - Lives.” According to a statistical summary, on the whole, - relatives of the mentally diseased do not wish to be informed. - (_Karl Brandt 85, Karl Brandt Ex. 94._) - -_Recognition of the Decree._ The point of view of German literature and -the administration of justice does not consider the present state of -constitutional law. After taking cognizance of the decree, all -authorities acknowledged it as the legal basis. - - Testimony of Lammers. “The Reich Minister of Justice Guertner - considered this regulation legal and stopped the pending - actions.” (_Tr. p. 2686._) - - Testimony of Brack. Guertner, the Reich Minister of Justice, - declared that the decree was not to be doubted. (_Tr. p. 7590._) - - Extract from the periodical “German Law” [Deutsche Justiz] 1941. - Transfer of the supreme officials of the Justice Department in - Berlin on 23 and 24 April 1941. According to this, photostatic - copies of the decree of 1 September 1939 were delivered to all - participators and its legality acknowledged by them. (_Brack 36, - Brack Ex. 36._) - - Affidavit of Suchomel. This witness erroneously places the date - of the conference in the 2d half of the year 1942. That means - some time after the stoppage. (_NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557._) - - Letter of 15 July 1940 of the General Prosecutor of Stuttgart to - the Reich Ministry of Justice containing a report concerning - illegal euthanasia. The following remark is made on the letter - by the department chief of the Reich Ministry of Justice: “There - is nothing to be ordered.” (_NO-156, Karl Brandt Ex. 4._) - - Schlaich to the Reich Ministry of Justice on 6 September - 1940—Nothing has been attempted. (_NO-520, Pros. Ex. 374._) - - Testimony of Schmidt. The witness states that during a - conference of jurists in Berlin 1941 the action was declared - legal. This refers to the conference mentioned above, as it was - mentioned in Document Brack 36, Brack Exhibit 36. (_Tr. p. - 1852._) - - _Preliminary Conference._ Karl Brandt did not take part in the - preliminary conference. - - Testimony of Karl Brandt. According to this, Karl Brandt was - invited unexpectedly, because he was available as an - attendant-physician, when the conference with Bouhler took - place. He was uninformed before this. Preliminary conferences - concerning euthanasia took place between Hitler and Bouhler, - Hitler and Conti. - - Testimony of Lammers. According to this, during a conference in - the autumn of 1939 in the presence of Lammers, a commission was - given to Conti to start euthanasia. (_Tr. p. 2668._) - - Testimony of Lammers. According to this, Bouhler declared that - Hitler wanted to give him the commission to carry out - euthanasia. (_Tr. p. 2669._) - - Testimony of Brack. According to this a rivalry existed between - Bouhler and Frick, Conti and Bormann, concerning the commission. - Bouhler went to Hitler and said he would consent to accept the - commission. Bouhler received the commission. (_Tr. p. 7556._) - -_Particular responsibility and participation of Karl Brandt._ According -to the existing conditions of constitutional law, the decree of 1 -September 1939 was to be looked upon as a legal order, and Karl Brandt, -in his capacity as a physician, could rely on the organizations of the -state and the opinions of the jurists. - -The belated objection to the decree today is not made because of its -external form, but in reality because of its contents. The circumstance -that no _publication_ of the decree took place was explained with -politically intelligible reasons, corresponding to similar regulations -issued for other measures. - -The _obligation of secrecy_ corresponds with the general regulations of -the administration; a warning with reference to the regulations of penal -law was usual. The so-called “death threat” is an exaggeration without -any sense; according to practice, a reference to penal regulations -concerning the revelation of secret matters had to be made where capital -punishment was provided as the severest punishment in the Reich Penal -Code. The opposition of all the persons interested in the procedure was -directed against the camouflage of measures, with its inevitable -consequences, the establishment of sham offices, the drawing-up of false -death certificates, false information for the relations. - -Karl Brandt accepted these regulations because they were the necessary -consequence of the consideration not to disturb the part of the -population involved. Neither the patient nor his relatives were to be -alarmed, and the relatives had to be released from their feeling of -responsibility. This motive is expressed in the correspondence -concerning Marie Kehr, where the proper information was given and served -as reassurance and warranted an expectation of understanding. - -Karl Brandt did not partake in the organization of the Euthanasia -Program. His connection with it, as an expert adviser for Hitler, is due -only to the accident that he was in the headquarters of the Fuehrer. He -received only a limited commission compared with Reichsleiter Bouhler, -who, according to his own offer, was charged with the execution of this -task. - - _Organization_ - -_Position taken in the indictment_ - - * * * * * - -_Position of the defense_ - -_Karl Brandt was not the leading person, Bouhler was the head of the -organization._ In the decree of 1 September 1939 Karl Brandt is listed -in second place, after Bouhler who had the rank of a Reich Minister. - -The indictment denotes Bouhler as the chief of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. -1531._) - - Bouhler’s letter to the Reich Minister of Justice of 5 September - 1940. “On the authority of the Fuehrer and as the _only_ - responsible person for all measures to be carried into effect, - _I_ have given the orders which seemed necessary to _me_ to _my_ - collaborators.” (_NO-156, Karl Brandt Ex. 4a and 4b._) - - Affidavit of Lammers (supplement). The witness certifies as - Bouhler’s the signature on the documents mentioned above. (_Karl - Brandt 92, Karl Brandt Ex. 86._) - - Letter from Bormann sent to the Gauleitung of Franconia. Here, - too, Bouhler is quoted as the Chief of the Committee of - Physicians. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._) - - Testimony of Lammers, according to which Karl Brandt never - appeared before Lammers; in the Reich Ministry of Justice also; - Bouhler was the only person who made an appearance. (_Tr. p. - 2672-3._) - - Affidavit of Kirchert. The witness had a conference with - Grawitz, who wanted to interest him in the use of euthanasia. - Grawitz declared to the witness that _Bouhler_ was charged with - euthanasia. To him Karl Brandt had never been mentioned. (_Karl - Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15._) - - Affidavit of Prince of Hesse (supplement). The witness declares - that he protested to Hitler and Bouhler because of the - euthanasia project. Karl Brandt had not been called in at that - time, though he could have been reached at once in the Fuehrer - Headquarters. The witness is convinced that Karl Brandt was - _not_ connected with the matter _in a decisive way_. (_Karl - Brandt 115, Karl Brandt Ex. 91._) - - Statement of Mennecke. The witness has never seen Karl Brandt, - nor did he receive any order from him; he only knows the - position of Karl Brandt within the framework of the euthanasia - project from hearsay. (_Tr. pp. 1903-5._) - - Statement of Schmidt. The witness did not know Karl Brandt and - did not see any order signed by him. He only knows by hearsay - from Hegener that Karl Brandt “was supposed to be the medical - chief” in 1941. In 1944 the witness learned that Karl Brandt was - no longer involved, but could not state if he had still any - influence in 1942 and 1943. (_Tr. pp. 1857-8._) - -_Karl Brandt had no administrative organization of his own._ - -_General items_ - - New plan of organization by Brack. (_Karl Brandt 8, Karl Brandt - Ex. 3_; _Karl Brandt 15, Karl Brandt Ex. 3_.) Testimony of Karl - Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2403._) - - Affidavit of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7550._) - -Judgment of the International Military Tribunal[101] according to which -Frick, as Reich Minister of the Interior, is made responsible for the -carrying out of the euthanasia project. - - Direct correspondence of the Bouhler office with the competent - authorities prove that Karl Brandt was not involved: Letter from - Brack to Schlegelberger. (_NO-842, Pros. Ex. 405._) Letter from - Brack to Freisler. (_NO-843, Pros. Ex. 406._) Letter from - Himmler to Brack. (_NO-018, Pros. Ex. 404._) - - Complaints of the national and ecclesiastical authorities and of - civilians did _not_ reach Karl Brandt. - - Complaint by Schlaich, Chief of the Mental Institution - of Stetten. This director who worked in this specialized - field does not know anything of Karl Brandt. (_NO-520, - Pros. Ex. 374._) - - Affidavit of Sprauer of 23 April 1946. The witness does - not mention Karl Brandt in this affidavit. (_3896-PS, - Pros. Ex. 372._) (Only in a later affidavit of 19 - November 1946, does he add a pertinent, general - statement.) - - Actual complaints are transferred by the ministries to - the Bouhler office, not to Karl Brandt. (_616-PS, Pros, - Ex. 403._) - -_Specific examples._ - - Statement of Pfannmueller, according to which the invitation for - the experts’ conference was made by Bouhler. (_Tr. p. 7316._) - - Statement of Pfannmueller. Bouhler took the chair in the second - conference in Berlin; Karl Brandt was not present. (_Tr. p. - 7359._) - - Statement of Brack, according to which Karl Brandt made no - speeches on problems of euthanasia, and he was not expected to - do so. (_Tr. p. 7588._) This is confirmed by the testimony of - Blome. - - Statement of Mennecke, according to which Brack was chairman of - the conference in February 1940. (_Tr. p. 1869._) - - Statement of Schmidt. Karl Brandt also was not present at the - conference in February 1941, but there were present - representatives of the Reich Ministry of the Interior and of the - Reich Ministry of Justice. (_Tr. p. 1819._) - - Statement of Pfannmueller, according to which the experts were - appointed by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. (_Tr. p. - 7377._) - - Statement of Brack, according to which the physicians were - chosen by Linden and Grawitz. (_Tr. pp. 7703, 7705._) - - Affidavit of Kneissler, according to which the persons in charge - of euthanasia were instructed by Blankenburg of the Bouhler - office. (_NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332._) Karl Brandt was not - mentioned. - - Affidavit of Sprauer, according to which the mental institutions - were under the control of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. - (_3896-PS, Pros. Ex. 372._) Answering a complaint of Sprauer, - Conti stated: “That is the business of the Reich Ministry of the - Interior.” - - Affidavit of Jordans. (_3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371._) Also confirms - that the mental institutions were under the control of the Reich - Ministry of the Interior. - - The order for evacuation from Warstein to Hadamar was not given - at the suggestion of the Reich Defense Commissioner or for - “systematic registration”, but with regard to the air raid - danger. (_NO-892, Pros. Ex. 442._) Karl Brandt was a member of - the committee for air raid damage, and it was his special task - within this committee to allot the space available in hospitals - fairly. The order was given in 1942, after the great air raids - in the area of Cologne and the industrial areas. It refers to an - institution in the interior of Westphalia which was considered - as a reception district at that time; the euthanasia facilities - at Hadamar were removed and the institution was returned to the - former owner. (See indictment in the Hadamar Trial.[102]) - - Affidavit of Steinbrecher. (_Karl Brandt 84, Karl Brandt Ex. - 87._) The activity of Karl Brandt on occasion of the removal of - the mental institution from Dueren shows that Karl Brandt was - not engaged as chief of the mental institutions, but in advisory - capacity beside the competent authority, because he had - influence and was charged with a special task in the field of - air raid protection, in view of his general allocation tasks. - Here Karl Brandt was able to help directly on account of his - special tasks connected with the Committee for Air Raid Damage. - - Statement of Rose. (_Tr. p. 6362._) Opinion of the witness as to - affidavit, NO-872, Prosecution Exhibit 408. From this it is seen - that Karl Brandt here did not have charge of the patients, but - was to endeavor with the other authorities to have the - institution placed at his disposal. - -_Real Position of Karl Brandt._ The position of Karl Brandt within the -framework of the Euthanasia Program was limited. - - Statement of Karl Brandt, according to which it was his task to - inform Hitler and to license physicians of the euthanasia - institutions according to the decree on the basis of personal - responsibility of the physicians. (_Tr. p. 2408._) - - Statement of Brack. The witness says that Karl Brandt had - nothing to do with the carrying out of the Euthanasia Program, - “for he was the delegate of Hitler”. (_Tr. p. 7571._) He had no - office at Tiergartenstrasse 4, and to the knowledge of Brack, he - was never in the office “T 4”. - - Affidavit of Reinhardt. (_Karl Brandt 5, Karl Brandt Ex. 6._) - The witness was occupied as an auditor in the office of Karl - Brandt, and he states that in this capacity he did not find in - the office of Karl Brandt any accounts or items with entries - referring to euthanasia. - - Affidavit of Schaub, according to which Karl Brandt was bound to - the Fuehrer Headquarters and to Hitler and thus was not able to - make any inspections. (_Karl Brandt 80, Karl Brandt Ex. 98._) - - Affidavit of Rach. (_Karl Brandt 6, Karl Brandt Ex. 7._) The - witness confirms the connection of Karl Brandt with the Fuehrer - Headquarters and with the clinic in Berlin. - - _Execution_ - -_Position taken in the indictment_ - - * * * * * - -_Position of the defense_ - -_Time._ The practice (of euthanasia) by virtue of the authorization -started at the beginning of 1940 and lasted until August 1941, when it -was stopped. Statement of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2431._) Statement of -Brack. (_Tr. p. 7543._) According to both statements, the practice was -suspended because of an oral order by Hitler to Karl Brandt. (Oral order -of suspension was sufficient, since the legal ordinance itself was not -revoked, because in principle euthanasia was supposed to be continued -after the war. Continuation of the Reich Committee for Children.) - -Suspension of euthanasia is confirmed through the following depositions: -Statement by Blome. (_Tr. p. 4653._) Statement by Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. -7348._) Statement by Dr. Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1823._) Statement by Dr. -Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1879._) According to these testimonies, euthanasia -was discontinued in Hadamar in August 1941 and the gas chambers removed. -(See record of Hadamar Trial, especially indictment[103].) - -The witnesses say further that euthanasia was no longer practiced at -Eichberg either. - - Affidavit of Irene Asam-Bruckmueller. The witness confirms - suspension in Ansbach; she places this in the year 1942. - (_3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365._) - - Affidavit of Jordans. According to this, the witness learned in - March 1942 that there had been a euthanasia program in other - institutions, too, which now had been discontinued. (_3882-PS, - Pros. Ex. 371._) - - Kirchert affidavit. According to this, suspension occurred in - the summer of 1941. (_Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15._) - - Mennecke correspondence. The witness writes on 15 June 1942 of - “re-commencement” of euthanasia. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._) - -_Number of dead._ - - Statement by Karl Brandt on the number of insane falling under - the authorization of 1 September 1939. (_Tr. p. 2465._) Brack - estimates them at 50,000 to 60,000. (_Tr. p. 7610._) - - Pfannmueller statement. The number of report forms which were - made out does not equal the number of persons marked for - euthanasia. This number contains only a fairly small percentage - of persons, who were judged eligible for euthanasia. (_Tr. p. - 7384._) - -_Registration by report forms._ - -_In general._ - - Statement by Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2401._) According to this, - Karl Brandt did not assist in drawing up the report forms. They - were drafted by the Reich Ministry of the Interior (Linden). - - Pfannmueller statement. (_Tr. p. 7322._) According to this, the - directives were worked out as a result of the conference of - experts at which Karl Brandt was not present. - -_In detail._ - - Pfannmueller statement. (_Tr. p. 7324._) According to this, no - persons incapable of work were supposed to be registered, but - only the insane, with whom the inability to work was a special - characteristic of their diseased state. - - Wesse Affidavit (in lieu of cross-examination). (_NO-129, Pros. - Ex. 105._) - - Statement of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2465._) According to Karl - Brandt, the registration of Jews, foreigners, and war wounded - was presumably carried out for statistical reasons. - - Statement of Brack. (_Tr. pp. 7596-8._) According to Brack the - opinion of Karl Brandt about the reasons for the inclusion of - the above-mentioned question is false and is based on “lack of - professional knowledge” by Karl Brandt. Brack says that the - questions were included only for the purpose of concealing the - practice of euthanasia in the sanatoriums and nursing homes, - from their personnel and their patients, and to veil the true - purpose of the questionnaire. (For the same reason the purpose - of the transfer was given out as “planned economic - registration.”) - - Rosenau affidavit about camouflaging purpose of the report - forms. (_Karl Brandt 130, Karl Brandt Ex. 106._) Letter - concerning the registration of workhouses. (_NO-781, Pros. Ex. - 379._) Not the old and disabled are registered, but only those - cases of insanity that can no longer be treated. - - Brack statement. (_Tr. p. 7599._) Foreigners were sorted out in - T 4. - - Brack statement. (_Tr. p. 7593._) According to this, foreigners - were exempt from euthanasia. They were screened in the central - office T 4. If single sheets for appraisal possibly went - further, then this was because of incorrect transmission. - Wounded veterans of World War I, just like Jews, were screened - at the central office T 4. Report forms were made out for Jews, - but they were not registered for the euthanasia procedure. - - _Classification procedure._ The accomplishment of the - classification procedure was guaranteed by the choice of the - appraisers. - - Statement by Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7377._) According to this, - professional persons of proven ability were designated by the - Reich Minister of the Interior. - - Statement by Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1294._) According to this, - university professors lecturing on psychiatry at colleges were - appointed as appraisers. The appraisal was preceded by an - examination of the patient. After the appraisal a re-examination - was made in observation institutions and in the euthanasia - institutions. - - According to the scheduled procedure special commissions were - appointed to examine the insane in nursing homes. - - Affidavit of Irene Asam-Bruckmueller. Then came a commission - which studied the case histories; among them were two - physicians; the commission was in the institution for three - days; after three months the transfer was effected. (_3865-PS, - Pros. Ex. 365._) - - Granzer affidavit. In the autumn of 1940 there was a commission - of 40 persons; all case histories were asked for and a - conference with the local staff physicians followed. An - inspection of the patients was held. (_3867-PS, Pros. Ex. 369._) - - Sellmer report of 6 December 1940, Gauleiter’s office, - Franconia. According to this a commission came and examined the - files and inspected the patients. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._) - - Decision of the commission was based on the documents of the - institution. (_NO-660, Pros. Ex. 377._) - - Pfannmueller statement. He recalls that a commission came in - 1940. (_Tr. p. 7325._) - -Further re-examination took place in the observation and euthanasia -institutions. The physicians were authorized and obliged to judge the -patients on their own responsibility. On an average 4 percent to 6 -percent were rejected. - - Kneissler affidavit. Witness says that individual persons were - rejected. (_NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332._) - - It appears from the reports that individual patients were sent - back. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._) - - _Transfer of patients. Order of transfer._ - - Statement by Karl Brandt. “Operation Brandt” has nothing to do - with the transfer. Through inquiries at sanatoriums and nursing - homes, special Karl Brandt project concerning euthanasia order. - According to this inquiry the hospitals of the special Brandt - project accepted patients from areas endangered by air raids as - evacuation hospitals. The transfer which became necessary had no - connection with euthanasia. (_Karl Brandt 86, Karl Brandt Ex. - 88._) - - Schnelle affidavit. According to this “Operation Brandt” meant - the removal of patients and chronic sufferers to medicinal - baths. (_Karl Brandt 21, Karl Brandt Ex. 17._) - - Miesen affidavit. According to this Karl Brandt charged them - with the manufacture of ambulances which were then lacking. - (From this it appears that up to that time other means of - transportation had to be used, among others the Red Cross, etc., - and also the General Sick Transport Company, which had likewise - been used for transport purposes in the battle zones of the - East.) Compare also the widely popular expression “Operation - Brandt” in purely economic fields. (_Karl Brandt 28._[104]) - - Schieber affidavit. (_Karl Brandt 22, Karl Brandt Ex. 18._) - - Grabe affidavit. (_Karl Brandt 86, Karl Brandt Ex. 88._) - - Kehrl affidavit. (_Karl Brandt 90, Karl Brandt Ex. 89._) - - _Order of transfer through other agencies._ Collective transport - of Jews takes place under the reference of “Initial Decree of - the State [Bavarian] Ministry [of Interior] in Munich.” - (_NO-1141, Pros. Ex. 348._) - - Collective transport of Eastern workers ordered by the - Oberpraesident through Bernotat. (_NO-891, Pros. Ex. 414._) - - Transfer through Munich [Bavarian] State Ministry [of Interior]. - (_NO-1132, Pros. Ex. 341._) - - Transfer through the Province Governor of Military District III. - (_NO-1133, Pros. Ex. 335._) - - Transfer through Military District III. (_NO-826, Pros. Ex. - 356._) - - Transfer through Munich Ministry. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._) - - Motives for the transfer. The transfer from institutions was - effected for various reasons as a result of wartime conditions, - such as evacuation of districts endangered by air raids, - evacuation on account of proximity to the front and evacuation - under consideration of inner displacements. - - Ganzer affidavit. (_3827-PS, Pros. Ex. 369._) According to this, - the evacuations became frequent on account of wartime conditions - and it was not easily apparent to the outsider why they were - effected. The evacuation from Warstein to Hadamar, where - reference is made to an order by Karl Brandt, could not have - taken place on account of euthanasia, as Hadamar at this time - had discontinued euthanasia. The change was made for reasons of - air raid precaution. - - _Carrying out of the evacuation._ - - Statement of Karl Brandt. The evacuation was carried out by the - Cooperative Ambulance Company through Office T 4, which was - _not_ subordinate to Karl Brandt. The Cooperative Ambulance - Company was not employed for euthanasia transports alone. - Whenever it was used, the account was rendered through the - clearing office which settled the matter centrally. - - Affidavit by Schieber on procurement of lacking ambulance space - through the defendant Karl Brandt. (_Karl Brandt 22, Karl Brandt - Ex. 18._) - - Affidavit by Miesen. (_Karl Brandt 28._[105]) - - Statement of Mennecke on the assignment of the Cooperative - Ambulance Company, 1941-42, in the East. - - Deportation of Jews. Here a separation of the Jews according to - nationality is carried out. Poles and Jews from Bohemia and - Moravia shall not be transferred because they do not belong to - the area of the transport. This shows that the aim of the - deportation was not euthanasia, because separation according to - nationality would have been senseless. (_NO-1310, Pros. Ex. - 337._) - - Affidavit by Schnidtmann. He expresses his opinion on the - transfer of workers from the East on 18 September 1944; they are - to be returned to their home institutions. This would have been - superfluous in the case of intended euthanasia. (_NO-720, Pros. - Ex. 366._) - - Affidavit by Rosenau. (_Karl Brandt 130, Karl Brandt Ex. 106._) - -_Reasons for euthanasia._ Euthanasia was brought about on the basis of -an authorization given to the directors of the euthanasia institutions -on 1 September 1939. This authorization was no order to carry out -euthanasia but merely gave permission to arrange for euthanasia after -examination based on a critical judgment of the condition of the -illness. Consequently, doctors acted on their own responsibility. - -_The means for the execution of euthanasia._ - - Statement of Brack. According to this statement, carbon monoxide - (CO) was used as a means. This is scientifically proved to be - the least painful manner of death. The use of other methods - proves that such an execution of euthanasia does not conform - with the intended procedure, but is carried out on personal - initiative. (_Tr. p. 7743._) - - Statement of Rose. (_Tr. p. 6363._) Opinion on the reduction of - food in medical institutions. (_NO-872, Pros. Ex. 403._) Rose - declares that this did not result in any particular reduction or - neglect of the patients. - -_Experimental killing of insane persons._ - - The handing-over of patients from the institution of - Eglfing-Haar is under consideration. (_No_ euthanasia). - (_1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357._) - -_Issue of false death certificates and notices._ - - Meltzer opinion. (_Karl Brandt 85, Karl Brandt Ex. 94._) This - document contains an inquiry sent to 200 relatives regarding - their attitude towards euthanasia. Most of the relatives agree - to it; it is characteristic that many disagree but declare that - they do not wish to be asked and that the matter had best be - kept secret and covered up (death should come unexpectedly not - influenced by the wishes and interests of others and should not - burden the relatives). Professor Meltzer, an opponent of - euthanasia, arranged for the examination as the director of an - insane asylum in order to obtain an argument against the main - advocates of euthanasia in Germany, Binding and Hoche, and he - declared that he was surprised at the result shown by the - questionnaire. - - _Euthanasia compared with Medical Euthanasia_ - -_Position taken in the indictment_ - - * * * * * - -_Position of the defense_ - -In addition to the prescribed euthanasia based on authorization a -so-called “wild euthanasia” took place, upon which the defendant Karl -Brandt had no influence, and of which he had no knowledge. - -_Euthanasia on Polish Nationals._ The authorization by Karl Brandt was -limited to the occupied territories, which were subordinate to special -administration, like the administration for the Government of Poland and -the Protectorate as well as the Communication Zone. Karl Brandt -therefore cannot be held responsible for the events which took place in -the insane asylums in Poland. The removal of Eglfing-Haar to the -occupied territories was carried out by the Cooperative Ambulance -Company, but the fact of the transport shows obviously that death was -not intended, as such a deportation would have been senseless. The -seizure of Poles in the Polish district Zichenau by the Reich Security -Main Office proves that quite another organization is at work than the -organization for euthanasia in Germany, which was Appointed by the -Ministry of the Interior as supervisory authority. - -_Euthanasia in the Communication Zone._ - - Affidavit by Halder. (_Karl Brandt 116, Karl Brandt Ex. 92._) - Rumors that inmates of the insane asylum of Novgorod and others - had been killed reached Halder. He knows that Karl Brandt was - not mentioned in this connection as he held no authority in this - field and that his appearance would be particularly noticeable. - -_Extermination in Auschwitz._ - - Letter from Brack to Himmler. (_NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163._) The - letter shows that the defendant Karl Brandt had nothing to do - with the deportation of persons to Auschwitz. Brack designates - the “men” as his “personnel” and on his own initiative offers - further personnel in his direct correspondence with Himmler. - - Statement of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7530._) He points out that he had - not accused Brandt himself of having any knowledge of or part in - this, but merely that the possibility was presented to him - during the interrogation by the prosecution. He had attempted to - maintain his opinion through changes in the text of the - affidavit composed for him. The text presented to him definitely - mentioned Brandt as a confidant. It was stated there: - - “It _was impossible_ for these people to participate - without the knowledge of Karl Brandt” further “that this - order _could_ have been issued by _Karl Brandt only_.” - Brack has changed the text in the best possible way and - has rearranged the sentence as follows: “It _would have - been_ impossible for these people to participate.” To - the phrase “only by order of Karl Brandt” was added - “possibly Bouhler.” - - Statement of Hielscher. (_Tr. p. 5982 ff._) On - cross-examination, the witness testified to the trustworthiness - of the witness Gerstein, who since submitting the affidavit can - no longer be traced and is presumed to be hiding. - - Statement of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1912._) The witness has not - learned any more in regard to the rumors of euthanasia in Lublin - and the participation of Karl Brandt in these matters in spite - of his particular interest. - -_The Workers from the East._ - - Statement of Schnidtmann. (_NO-720, Pros. Ex. 366._) - Subsequently the transfer of the insane Eastern workers to a - home institution took place. No euthanasia was therefore carried - out; a transfer for this purpose would have been senseless. - - _Euthanasia after Cessation in 1941_ - -_Position taken in the indictment_ - - * * * * * - -_Position of the defense_ - -With the cessation of euthanasia in August 1941, a new procedure -appeared in which Karl Brandt no longer participated. Karl Brandt -personally was fully occupied with special commissions in other fields -(building of hospitals; since 1942 Commissioner General; since 1944 -Reich Commissioner for Health and Medical Care). The cessation was -ordered during August 1941. Subsequently euthanasia was discontinued. - - Statement of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1879._) Hadamar in August 1941. - (Compare also the documents of the Hadamar Trial,[106] - particularly indictment.) - - The same applies to Eichberg in August 1941. (_Tr. p. 1879._) - - Affidavit by Kirchert. According to this there was general - cessation in the summer of 1941. (_Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt - Ex. 15._) - - Affidavit by Asam-Bruckmueller. (_3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365._) - According to this euthanasia was also discontinued in Ansbach. - - Affidavit by Jordans. (_3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371._) Hereby - euthanasia was also discontinued in other institutions in 1942. - -(The statements regarding date of cessation may be erroneous inasmuch as -they were made long after the end of 1941. It is also possible that in -spite of the order to cease, some places still carried on upon the -instruction of the local authorities.) - -A new purpose for euthanasia is presented, which begins after the -cessation. The motive is no longer medical and also has no more -connection with the authorization. - - Letter from Liebehenschel to the concentration camp of - Gross-Rosen of 12 December 1941 on the discharge of prisoners. - (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._) - - Correspondence of Mennecke. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._) Therein a - report is made about the cooperation of a new group, concerned - with extermination. Under the date of 15 June 1942 Mennecke - speaks about the “re-commencement” of euthanasia. - - Statement of Brack. The witness reports of Bouhler’s worry that - before requesting the euthanasia commission on 1 September 1939, - Bormann and other powers might wish to use the opportunity and - he feared they might abuse it (wild euthanasia). - -_Legal foundations._ Karl Brandt is not acquainted with the legal -foundation for such proceedings after expiration of the authorization of -1 September 1939. After the cessation of euthanasia in August 1941, the -powers held on the basis of the authorization of 1 September 1939 could -no longer be exercised. - - Statement of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2421._) According to this, - Karl Brandt, in 1944 learned of two cases in Saxony and of one - in Pomerania where euthanasia was carried out. He forwarded this - report to Hitler, Bormann, and Bouhler because he felt that - within Bormann’s sphere extremists were at work. - -_Organization._ The old organization was abandoned or considerably -reduced. (Compare the indictment of the Hadamar Case[107] regarding the -liquidation office.) - -The physicians were dismissed in August 1941 from the Office, -Tiergartenstrasse 4. - - Letter from Brack to Himmler of 23 June 1942. (_NO-205, Pros. - Ex. 163._) Here he refers to the former transfer of personnel - and once more offers people from the remaining personnel. - -It seems that the organization was now under the influence of Himmler. -Karl Brandt was eliminated by the cessation in 1941. - - Affidavit of Beringer. (_NO-808, Pros. Ex. 425._) The witness - says, “it was an open secret in the Gau that Mennecke was - charged by _Himmler_ to search the mental institutions of - Germany for insane persons.” - -_Activity of the former organization._ Registration sheet. - - Letter of the Reich Ministry of the Interior of 1 August 1940. - (_3871-PS, Pros. Ex. 359._) According to this all sick persons - are now to be reported. The letter is addressed to the private - clinic of Hertz at Bonn. - - Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1902._) According to this, the - program was not resumed again in its original form. - -Some of the experts had retired. - -The killing no longer took place by carbon monoxide but by other means -and by other methods. - -In part the dead were not burned anymore but buried (as at Hadamar). - - _Elimination in the Concentration Camps_ - -_Position taken in the indictment_ - - * * * * * - -_Position of the defense_ - -Motive is not reconcilable with medical authorization; this does not -allow euthanasia for political or economic reasons. - - Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1913._) The witness explains - that the execution was a complete breach of the directive at the - start of euthanasia. “At least it had nothing to do with the - euthanasia of lunatics.” - - Testimony of Karl Brandt. - -_Time._ - - Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1933._) According to this Brack - spoke of undertaking an examination in the KL [concentration - camp] Oranienburg for the first time in the summer of 1940. - - Testimony of Roemhild. (_Tr. p. 1659._) The witness says that a - second action 14 f 13 started in 1943 (therefore an independent - action after the suspension of 1941). From that the independent - character of the “first action 14 f 13” must be concluded, and - it is to be assumed that it was ordered by the Reich Criminal - Police Office, Berlin, as was the second action 14 f 13. - - According to the testimony of Mennecke (_Tr. p. 1914_), Action - 14 f 13 did not start with the first visit in 1940, but at first - it was only an expert opinion according to medical points of - view. In 1940 prisoners were examined by him in the - concentration camp Buchenwald and registration forms filled out. - At that time the examination extended to phychoses and - psychopathy. - - Affidavit of Muthig. According to this a transport went from - Dachau to Mauthausen in December 1941 after examination by - Heyde. (_NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497._) - -_Order._ There were two parallel orders: - -The order of the office of Bouhler in accordance with the Euthanasia -Program, according to which from 1940 on the lunatics in the -concentration camps were examined according to the directions. - - Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1935._) According to this, the - order to visit the concentration camps was issued in the summer - of 1940. - -The order of Himmler to submit to the special treatment of action 14 f -13, or to kill undesirable prisoners, regardless of these examinations. - - Letter of 10 December 1941 regarding the special action 14 f 13. - (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._) - - Affidavit of Hoven. Order by Himmler was at hand for the - execution of these actions. (_NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281._) Further - testimony of Hoven. - - Report of Dr. Morgen in the proceedings against Hoven: “The - right to decide about the life or death of prisoners in the - concentration camps is assigned to the Reich Leader SS - _Himmler_.” (_NO-2366, Pros. Ex. 526._) - -_Organization._ Two organizations working side by side have to be -distinguished: (1) Organization for the selection of real lunatics -according to the authorization of 1 December 1939. Here the organization -of Bouhler is active up to summer 1941 within the framework of the -former directives. (2) Organization for extermination contrary to the -former directives, exclusively by Himmler and the Reich Security Main -Office. - - Testimony of Roemhild, about Action 14 f 13. (_Tr. p. 1641._) - - Testimony of Roemhild. (_Tr. p. 1644._) According to this, Dr. - Lolling participated, and was corresponding about it with - Himmler. - - Testimony of Roemhild. (_Tr. p. 1659._) According to this, the - second Action 14 f 13 started on the orders of the Reich - Criminal Police Office, Berlin. - - It was the independent work of Lolling in the concentration camp - Oranienburg. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._) - - Letter from concentration camp Gross-Rosen to the institution - Bernburg. (_NO-1873, Pros. Ex. 556._) - - Report on special treatment to Main Economic and Administrative - Office. (_1234-PS, Pros. Ex. 555._) - -_Execution._ Nothing was done before the suspension in August 1941. - - Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1933._) According to this, the - first visit in 1940 was not the start. Until autumn 1941 there - was only a general examination of the insane persons. - - Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1940._) There were no objections - regarding the examination of insane persons in the first action. - - Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1890._) According to this, - Mennecke himself filled out the registration forms, and they - were treated in the same way as the registration forms of mental - institutions. This was only so during the first visits of - Mennecke, while the examinations were still taking place - according to the prescribed medical points of view. - -After autumn 1941 another procedure was adopted. The registration forms -were no longer supplied by Tiergartenstrasse 4, but produced and filled -out by the inspectorate of the concentration camp. - - The filling out of the registration forms is restricted to a few - points according to an order of the Reich Security Main Office. - (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._) It was sufficient to fill out the - particulars of the form underlined in red. These were name, date - of birth, religion, race, since when in institution, physical - incurable complaints, disabled soldier, offense, former criminal - offenses. - - Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1914._) He does not know what a - physician is expected to tell from registration forms filled out - in such a way. - - No expert was present. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._) - - In the proceedings 14 f 13, the consideration of the disease was - not the main thing. - - Here there is talk about “special treatment 14 f 13”; it has - nothing to do with euthanasia but is extermination. (_NO-158, - Pros. Ex. 410._) - - Correspondence of the Main Economic and Administration Office - with the concentration camp Gross-Rosen. (_1234-PS, Pros. Ex. - 555._) Only special treatment is mentioned. The word - “euthanasia” nowhere appears. - -_Examination._ The fact that the Mauthausen concentration camp is -mentioned as a place of execution, which was not empowered to carry out -the euthanasia within the framework of the order of 1 September 1939, -shows the arbitrariness of the “action.” It must be assumed that Himmler -included Bernburg, favorably situated to him, in the exercise of his own -full powers. The difference in the examination according to the -directions and according to the proceedings applied in the concentration -camp is shown in the correspondence of Mennecke. - - Correspondence of Mennecke. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._) - - Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1882._) According to this, it - later on depended only on ascertaining reasons for the arrest, - and not on the medical examination. - - Letter from the concentration camp Gross-Rosen to Liebehenschel - of 25 March 1942. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._) According to this, - a part of the “eliminated prisoners” became “fit for work” - again. - - Communication of the concentration camp Gross-Rosen of 16 - November 1941 about the elimination of prisoners. (_NO-158, - Pros. Ex. 410._) The killing was done at the institutions of - Bernburg and in the concentration camp Mauthausen. - -_Connection of Karl Brandt with the Concentration Camps._ - - Affidavit of Dietzsch. (_NO-1314, Pros. Ex. 433._) According to - this, Karl Brandt was said to have been in Buchenwald. - - Appendix—Affidavit of Dietzsch. (_Karl Brandt 98, Karl Brandt - Ex. 39._) Dietzsch corrects his supposition and explains he did - not see Karl Brandt in Buchenwald. - - Testimony of Hoven. (_Tr. p. 9911._) - -The correspondence submitted was conducted exclusively by offices of -concentration camps. - - Appendix—Report of Dr. Morgen shows that the right over life - and death is assigned to Reich Leader SS Himmler. (_NO-2366, - Pros. Ex. 526._) The name of Karl Brandt is not mentioned in the - correspondence. - -The witness Mennecke cannot give any information about the activity of -Karl Brandt within the framework of the special treatment 14 f 13 -attributed to him by the indictment. - - _Euthanasia Practice on Children (Reich Committee)_ - -_Position taken in the indictment_ - - * * * * * - -_Position of the defense_ - -_Motive._ From a medical standpoint, it is a humane motive to shorten -the lives of children not fit to live. - - Testimony of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1854._) At the discussion in 1941 - only medical viewpoints were dealt with. The Reich Committee was - already being prepared before the authorization of 1 September - 1939 (Leipzig case). - -_Time._ Execution was in force from 1940 to 1944. - - Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7310._) Execution at - Eglfing-Haar did not start before 1 June 1940. - - Pfannmueller letter to Reich Committee of 17 January 1941. - (_NO-1139, Pros. Ex. 346._) It refers to agreement of 10 - December 1940 in connection with decision of 18 August 1939. - - Kaufbeuren documents. (_1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357._) According to - this, euthanasia was carried on in the Irrsee Institute, even - after the occupation in 1945. - - Supplement, Affidavit of Weese. (_Karl Brandt 129, Karl Brandt - Ex. 105._) Opinion on the state of disease was arrived at - objectively by medical examination. - -_Legal basis._ Legal basis was the authorization of 1 September 1939, -which had not been suspended or annulled for the activity of the Reich -Committee. - - Decree regarding treatment of malformed children. (_Brack 52, - Brack Ex. 43._) Circular of 1 July 1940, published in the - Ministerial Gazette. There, compulsory reporting of malformed - and insane children is provided for. - -_Organization._ - - Affidavit of Sprauer, according to which the direction of the - Reich Committee was in the hands of von Linden at the Reich - Ministry and not under Karl Brandt. (_3896-PS, Pros. Ex. 372._) - - Testimony of Karl Brandt, according to which the direction was - with Linden of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. (_Tr. p. - 2433._) - - Affidavits of Engel and Schaub. Karl Brandt was attached to the - Fuehrer’s General Headquarters. (_Karl Brandt 81, Karl Brandt - Ex. 85_; _Karl Brandt 80, Karl Brandt Ex. 98_.) - - Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1903._) Mennecke never saw a - document signed by Karl Brandt. He never saw him and never heard - him speak. Karl Brandt was only available to give advice. In a - few cases, he was consulted when there were doubts about the - final expert opinion. - - Testimony of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7612._) According to this Bouhler - and Brandt voiced their opinion on the judgment of experts only - in questionable cases. Further observation was indicated if - there were doubts at all. - - Testimony of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2532._) According to this, - Karl Brandt resigned from the Reich Committee in the summer of - 1942. He was not used as an expert. - - Letter of the Reich Committee of 16 November 1943 regarding the - child Anna Gasse. (_NO-890, Pros Ex. 443._) - - Testimony of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2541._) By virtue of this - letter, addressed to Karl Brandt, an inquiry by the Reich - Committee is addressed to the Eichberg Institution. This - incident is the outcome of the claim of an incompetent person. - The letter shows precisely that Karl Brandt did not have an - office of his own, but that he remitted the letter to the - competent official authority. - -_Execution._ - - Registration was handled by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. - (_NO-1132, Pros. Ex. 341._) - -The notification about the children was made, as required by law, by -physicians, midwives, and clinics. - - Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7312._) According to this, - the registration sheets were published in the gazette of the - Reich Ministry. - - Sick records had to be attached to the report. (_NO-1133, Pros. - Ex. 335._) - - Directive issued by the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the - effect that personnel and sick records are to be attached. - (_NO-1132, Pros. Ex. 341._) - - Letter of 30 April 1941, with regard to the child Thalmeyer. - (_NO-1138, Pros. Ex. 349._) In that case a medical report on the - child was especially required. - - Testimony of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1828._) According to this, the - registration followed upon information obtained from health - offices, midwives, and clinics for children. - -Medical opinion was given by special advisers who cooperated with -official physicians. - - Affidavit of Weese. (_Karl Brandt 129, Karl Brandt Ex. 105._) - -The transfer of partly Jewish children has no connection with the Reich -Committee. - - Directive issued by the Provincial President Bernotat of 15 May - 1943 concerning the collection of part Jews. (_NO-893, Pros. Ex. - 426._) - - Consent of the parents. - - Letter of the Reich Committee of 9 January 1943 to the health - office at Tuttlingen. (_Karl Brandt 40, Karl Brandt Ex. 84._) - There the competent authority declares that a transfer of a - child is not permissible in principle if the consent of the - parents is not given. - - Testimony of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7612._) The consent of the parents - was secured by the official physician or by the physician in - charge, in other words, before the child was taken to the - clinic. - - It was up to the practicing physicians to inform the parents of - the type of treatment which the child would undergo and of the - prospects of success. (_Brack 52, Brack Ex. 43._) The - probability of death was stressed. - - Testimony of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2399._) According to this, - the parents were treated with care while being questioned, in - order that their conscience should not bother them later. - - Testimony of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2544._) According to this the - consent of the parents was not put into writing but was given - orally and then a note made of it in the files. No child was - removed against the express wishes of the parents. - -_How the killing was done._ - - Testimony of Pfannmueller (_Tr. p. 7331_) rebuts affidavit of - Jordans (_3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371_). According to this, where - treatment was not possible any more, putting to sleep by - narcotics was effected by the physician of the institution. - There was no National Socialist nursing staff to carry out the - killing. - - Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7304._) Comment on the - statement in the affidavit of Lehner according to which - euthanasia was not practiced on children before the war. - - Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7329._) Comment on the - conference of the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior in 1942. - According to this, the starvation process had not been ordered - but on account of the general food situation no additional food - supplies were permitted which exceeded the rations of the - civilian population. - - Affidavit of Weese. (_Karl Brandt 129, Karl Brandt Ex. 105._) - Graph indicating cases of death of insane persons in the - Kaufbeuren Clinic from 1910 till 1944. (_Karl Brandt 123, Karl - Brandt Ex. 93._) The graph shows that during the membership of - Karl Brandt in the Reich Committee the number of cases of death - did not really exceed those of World War I. Only after his - retirement does the curve rise suddenly. - - Performance of experiments by Professor McCance on children not - fit to live in the Military Hospital, Wuppertal, in 1946. (_Karl - Brandt 93, Karl Brandt Ex. 29._) - - Testimony of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7716._) According to this, the - consent of the parents was secured in some form or other. - - _Authorization._ The authorization was given for each case - separately on the basis of the files. - - Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7304._) About the types of - children in question. - - Affidavit of Leusser. (_3864-PS, Pros. Ex. 367._) There it is - pointed out that the children stood at the lowest level of - idiocy. - - Testimony of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1821._) The witness names the - type of diseases in question. He says that the consultants and - chief consultants gave the authorization. - - Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7314._) According to this, - the authorization orders did not read that the life of the - children was to be shortened, but it was only an authorization - for treatment. - - Affidavit of Schmidt. (_3816-PS, Pros. Ex. 370._) The witness - has seen many certificates of authorization, all of which were - signed by Hegener. - -_Special authorization._ The Reich Committee could not issue special -authorizations for adults. The signature of Hegener in individual cases -is in contradiction to issued directives. It was an arbitrary evasion of -the decreed cessation of euthanasia. - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR THE DEFENDANT - BRACK_[108] - - * * * * * - -The defendants in this trial, who are doctors, were accused in General -Taylor’s opening speech of having committed atrocities under the guise -of medical science. The defendant Brack is not one of these doctors. -Brack would probably not even have appeared before you as a war criminal -had his superior Bouhler been still alive. Brack worked as an expert in -the Fuehrer’s Chancellery and in his field of work had nothing to do -with medical problems. Nor is Brack accused by the prosecution of having -participated in medical experiments. - -However, Brack is accused of participation in the genocide policy of the -Third Reich insofar as he participated in the Euthanasia Program and the -sterilization experiments, and was conscious of their destructive -purpose. - -In the judgment of the IMT the word “euthanasia” or “Euthanasia Program” -is not used at all. It only mentions measures that were taken for the -purpose of killing all the old, mentally ill, and all those who had -incurable diseases, in special institutions; this included German -nationals and foreign workers who were unable to work. In the separate -judgment of the defendant Frick,[109] too, only these measures are -mentioned. - -Any connection, or even the possibility of such a connection between -these measures and persecution of the Jews, dealt with in a separate -chapter, in particular with the plans drawn up in the summer of 1941 for -a “final solution” of the Jewish question in Europe, was never -established by the IMT nor even hinted at. - -Until 1939 the word “euthanasia” was unknown to Brack as well as to -large circles of the German population. That this word originally meant -the “art” of dying, or to meet death with serene calm, had remained the -secret of those scientists who were interested in the Greek language. - -During the course of centuries the meaning of this word changed. It -first became the expression for the attempt of the -physician—originating in human compassion, developed by medical -science—to alleviate the end of a dying person by soothing his pain. -But then the meaning of the word, and with it the concept of euthanasia, -was expanded, and towards the end of the 19th century it meant -assistance in dying through an abbreviation of life if the life of the -suffering person had lost its value in view of immediate and painful -death, or as a result of an incurable disease. - -It is a fact that this kind of euthanasia has been applied throughout -the world since time began and can be traced back to the Twelve Tables -of Ancient Rome and to the epoch of state socialism in antiquity. - -The assertion of the prosecution that euthanasia was the product of -National Socialism and its racial theories can be indisputably refuted -by history. - -Even if the prosecution is of a different opinion, the Tribunal cannot -overlook the fact that the testimony of Karl Brandt, Brack, -Pfannmueller, Hederich, Schultze, Grabe, Gertrud Kallmeyer, and Walter -Eugen Schmidt, all stated independently that the measures started -according to Hitler’s will in the autumn of 1939 only applied to -incurable, mentally ill persons, and were suspended in 1941. For these -measures, the participants used the word and the concept of “euthanasia” -in the meaning of the final medical assistance, whether justly or -injustly, will be discussed later. - -It is not uninteresting to note that the word “Euthanasia Program” -appears for the first time in the Brack affidavit (_NO-426, Pros. Ex. -160_), which was drawn up by the prosecution after several -interrogations; Brack at that time was in a state of physical and mental -exhaustion and, therefore, not in a position to realize clearly what he -said. - -The defense, in agreement with the prosecution, refrained from -presenting an expert medical opinion, but did not, as the prosecution -now asserts, refuse to present it. - -I regret very deeply that the prosecution, when using the word -“Euthanasia Program” coined by them, characterizes without sufficient -proof the euthanasia applied in 1939-1941 for the incurably sick as the -conscious and deliberate precursor of the different actions of -annihilation which mark the milestones of the mental and moral ruins -left to the German people by men who had become insane. - -If the prosecution had been sure of their assumption, they would not -have had to submit those extremely doubtful documents with which they -tried to prove in cross-examination that the defendant Brack -participated in planning the mass extermination of the Jews. - - * * * * * - -How, in the face of such insufficient evidence which is opposed by -numerous cases of intervention for Jews in that period of time—I only -recall the cases Warburg and Georgii—and in the face of Brack’s sworn -statements about his attitude towards Jewry, can the prosecution assert -that Brack participated in planning the extermination of the Jews? In -this way, the prosecution closed the circle incriminating Brack, which -they drew round the euthanasia of incurable mental patients, the Action -14 f 13, and the final measures to exterminate the Jews. - -I wish to stress again that everything that happened after the stop in -August 1941 in the way of abuse by the euthanasia institutions had -nothing to do with the euthanasia of the incurably insane which was -supported by Brack. An opposing view would only be suitable to make a -historical record which is not supported by the weight of the judgment -of the International Military Tribunal, but merely corresponds to a -conjecture which in the decisive points themselves is void of every -substantiated basis. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Prosecution Documents_ - - Pros. Ex. -Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page -NO-426 160 Extract from the affidavit of 842 - defendant Brack, 14 October 1946, - describing administrative details - and procedure of the Euthanasia - Program. -615-PS 246 Letter from Dr. Hilfrich, Bishop of 845 - Limburg, to the Reich Minister of - Justice, 13 August 1941, - protesting against the killing of - mentally ill people. -NO-429 281 Extract from the affidavit of 847 - defendant Hoven, 24 October 1946, - concerning the transfer of - concentration camp inmates to - euthanasia stations for - extermination. -630-PS 330 Letter from Hitler to Karl Brandt 848 - and Bouhler, 1 September 1939, - charging them with the execution - of euthanasia. -NO-1135 334 Confirmation, 30 August 1940, of the 848 - transfer of mental patients with - list of transferred patients - attached. -1696-PS 357 Letter from Dr. Conti to the Mental 849 - Hospital in Kaufbeuren, 16 - November 1939, requesting that - questionnaires (attached) be - filled out for individual - patients; letter from the General - Sick Transport Company to the - Mental Hospital in Kaufbeuren, 12 - May 1941, stating that the company - would remove mental patients; - report from the Provincial - Association for Social Welfare in - Swabia, 6 May 1941, that all - transferred patients had died; - letter from Gaum, 24 November - 1942, to Dr. Leinisch stating that - epileptics would be made available - for research. -3896-PS 372 Extract from the affidavit of Dr. 853 - Ludwig Sprauer, 23 April 1946, - concerning the organization of the - Euthanasia Program. -NO-520 374 Letter from the chief of the 854 - institution for feeble-minded in - Stetten to Dr. Frank, 6 September - 1940, requesting that euthanasia - be carried out only after legal - basis was created. -NO-660 377 Note by Sellmer, 6 December 1940, 855 - describing the method of selection - for euthanasia. -NO-018 404 Letter from Himmler to Brack, 19 856 - December 1940, requesting that - Euthanasia Station Grafeneck be - discontinued and that motion - pictures be shown to dispel - rumors. -NO-842 405 Letter from Brack to Dr. 857 - Schlegelberger, 18 April 1941, - forwarding forms for euthanasia - and suggesting that death - notifications should not follow a - stereotyped form. -NO-158 410 Letter from Hirche, administrator of 858 - the Mental Institution Bernburg, - to camp commandant of the - Gross-Rosen concentration camp, 19 - March 1942, with list of inmates - transferred from the concentration - camp to Bernburg. -NO-907 412 Extract from letter from Dr. Fritz 861 - Mennecke to his wife, 25 November - 1941, concerning his activities as - physician selecting inmates of - concentration camp Buchenwald for - euthanasia. -NO-1007 413 Circular from Gluecks to 862 - concentration camp commandants, 27 - April 1943, stating that in the - future only insane prisoners - should be used for Action “14 f - 13” (euthanasia). -NO-891 414 Directive of the Reich Minister of 863 - the Interior, 6 September 1944, - ordering euthanasia extended to - insane Eastern workers. -1553-PS 428 Extract from the field interrogation 865 - of Kurt Gerstein, 26 April 1945, - describing the mass gassing of - Jews and other “undesirables.” -NO-365 507 Unsigned draft letter from Dr. 870 - Wetzel to Rosenberg, 25 October - 1941, dealing with Brack’s - collaboration in the construction - of gas chambers for the - extermination of Jews. - - _Defense Documents_ - - Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Documents -Karl Brandt 18 Karl Brandt Ex. Extracts from the affidavit of Dr. 871 - 15 Werner Kirchert, 29 January 1947, - stating that Karl Brandt was not - involved in the Euthanasia - Program. -Karl Brandt 19 Karl Brandt Ex. Affidavit of Alfred Rueggeberg, 23 872 - 16 January 1947, concerning radio - discussions on euthanasia. -Karl Brandt 23 Karl Brandt Ex. Affidavit of Eduard Woermann, 18 873 - 19 January 1947, concerning - discussion of Karl Brandt and - Pastor Bodelschwingh on - euthanasia. -Pokorny 19 Pokorny Ex. 27 Affidavit of Dr. Helmuth Weese, 19 874 - March 1947, concerning use of - caladium seguinum for - sterilization. - - _Testimony_ - Page -Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Mennecke 875 -Extracts from the testimony of defendant Brack 876 -Extract from the testimony of prosecution witness Walter E. Schmidt 890 -Extracts from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt 892 - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-426 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 160 - - EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT BRACK, 14 OCTOBER 1946, - DESCRIBING ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS AND PROCEDURE OF THE EUTHANASIA - PROGRAM - - * * * * * - - _The Euthanasia Program_ - -4. The Euthanasia Program was initiated in the summer of 1939. Hitler -issued a secret order to Professor Dr. Karl Brandt, Reich Commissioner -for Medical and Health Matters, and at that time personal physician to -the Fuehrer, and to Philipp Bouhler, charging them with responsibility -for the killing of human beings who were unable to live, that is, the -according of a mercy death to incurably insane persons. Prior to the -issuance of this secret order, Bouhler had a conference with Dr. Brandt -and Dr. Leonardo Conti, the Reich Chief for Public Health and State -Secretary in the Ministry of Interior. On the basis of this order of -Hitler, Bouhler and Brandt were to select doctors to carry out this -program. Inasmuch as the insane asylums and other institutions were -functions of the Ministry of Interior, Dr. Herbert Linden became the -representative of the Ministry of Interior. Dr. Karl Brandt and Philipp -Bouhler appointed Professor Dr. Heyde and Professor Dr. Nietsche along -with several other medical men to aid in the execution of this -Euthanasia Program. - -5. Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was in charge of the medical section of the -Euthanasia Program. In this capacity, as shown in the chart I have -drawn, dated 12 September 1946, Dr. Karl Brandt appointed as his -deputies Professor Heyde and Professor Nietsche. In charge of the -administrative office under Brandt was first Herr Bohne and later Herr -Allers. Three different names were used by Brandt’s section in order to -disguise the activities of the organization. The names of the -organization are as follows: - - Reich Association—Mental Institutions. - - Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care. - - General Patient Transport Company. - -6. In the early stages of this program, Dr. Karl Brandt visited Philipp -Bouhler and discussed with him many details of this program. As a matter -of fact, after such meetings between Brandt and Bouhler, I received many -orders, more often from Bouhler than from Brandt directly. - -7. In my capacity as Chief of Office II of Bouhler’s Chancellery, I was -ordered to carry out the administrative details of the Euthanasia -Program. My deputy was Werner Blankenburg, who eventually became my -successor, that is, in the beginning of 1942 when I joined the Waffen -SS. Von Hegener, Reinh, Vorberg, and Dr. Hevelmann were members of my -staff. - -8. In the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Linden was in charge of the -Euthanasia Program and his deputy was Ministerialrat Franke. The -Department for Public Health in the Ministry of the Interior had -authority over all insane asylums of the Reich, and in this position, my -department as well as the office of Dr. Brandt maintained close liaison -in order to operate this Euthanasia Program efficiently. - - _The Procedure_ - -9. By order of Dr. Linden, the directors of all insane asylums in the -Reich had to complete questionnaires for each patient in their -institutions. These questionnaires were drafted by Bouhler, Heyde, -Nietsche, and others in several of their many conferences. The -questionnaires were then forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior to be -distributed to the various insane asylums and similar institutions. -Theoretically, Dr. Linden’s office had the questionnaires returned and -then forwarded them to the administrative section of the office of Dr. -Brandt. The program was so arranged that photostats of each -questionnaire were to be sent to four experts consisting of about 10 to -15 doctors. I do not remember the names of all the members of this -panel, but Dr. Pfannmueller, Dr. Schumann, Dr. Faltlhauser, and Dr. -Rennaux are fresh in my memory in this connection. Each of these experts -indicated by making a certain comment on the questionnaire whether or -not the patient could be transferred to an observation institution and -eventually killed. The questionnaire was then forwarded to a senior -expert. According to the regulation, the senior expert was only entitled -to order the transfer of the patient when all four experts voted for the -transfer. This senior expert also marked the questionnaire and then -submitted it to Dr. Linden who ordered the insane asylum to transfer the -patient to one of the observation institutions. Offhand I can remember, -among others, the names of the following observation institutions: -Eglfing-Haar, Kempten, Jena, Buch, Arnsberg. - -10. At these institutions the patients were under the observation of the -doctor in charge for a period of 1 to 3 months. The physician had the -right to exempt the patient from the program if he decided that the -patient was not incurable. If he agreed with the opinion of the senior -expert, the patient was transferred to a so-called Euthanasia -Institution. I can recall the names of the Euthanasia Institutions— - - Grafeneck—under Dr. Schuman. - - Brandenburg—under Dr. Hennecke. - - Hartheim—under Dr. Rennaux. - - Sonnenstein—under Dr. Schmalenbach. - - Hadamar—(I do not remember under whose leadership). - - Bernburg—under Dr. Behnke or Dr. Becker. - -In these institutions the patient was killed by means of gas by the -doctor in charge. To the best of my knowledge, about fifty to sixty -thousand persons were killed in this way from autumn 1939 to the summer -of 1941. - -11. The order issued by the Fuehrer to Brandt and Bouhler was secret and -never published. The Euthanasia Program itself was kept as secret as -possible, and for this reason, relatives of persons killed in the course -of the program were never told the real cause of death. The death -certificates issued to the relatives carried fictitious causes of death -such as heart failure. All persons subjected to the Euthanasia Program -did not have an opportunity to decide whether they wanted a mercy death, -nor were their relatives contacted for approval or disapproval. The -decision was purely within the discretion of the doctors. The program -was not restricted to those cases in which the person was “in extremis”. - -12. Hitler’s ultimate reason for the establishment of the Euthanasia -Program in Germany was to eliminate those people confined to insane -asylums and similar institutions who could no longer be of any use to -the Reich. They were considered useless objects and Hitler felt that by -exterminating these so-called useless eaters, it would be possible to -relieve more doctors, male and female nurses, and other personnel, -hospital beds and other facilities for the armed forces. - -_Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary Diseases and Constitutional - Susceptibility to Severe Diseases_ - -13. This committee, which was also a function of the Euthanasia Program, -was an organization for the killing of children who were born mentally -deficient or physically deformed. All physicians assisting at births, -midwives, and maternity hospitals were ordered by the Ministry of -Interior to report such cases to the office of Dr. Linden in the -Ministry of Interior. Experts in the medical section of Dr. Brandt’s -office were then ordered to give their opinion in each case. As a matter -of fact, the complete file on each case was sent to the offices of -Bouhler and Dr. Brandt in order to obtain their opinions and to decide -the fate of each child involved. In many cases these children were to be -operated upon in such a manner that the result was either complete -recovery or death. Death resulted in a majority of these cases. The -program was inaugurated in the summer of 1939. Bouhler told me that Dr. -Linden had orders to obtain the consent of the parents of each child -concerned. I do not know how long this program continued, since I joined -the Waffen SS in 1942. - - _The Connection between the Euthanasia Program and SS Brigadefuehrer - Globocnik_ - -14. In 1941 I received an oral order to discontinue the Euthanasia -Program. I received this order either from Bouhler or from Dr. Brandt. -In order to preserve the personnel relieved of these duties and to have -the opportunity of starting a new Euthanasia Program after the war, -Bouhler requested, I think after a conference with Himmler, that I send -this personnel to Lublin and put it at the disposal of SS Brigadefuehrer -Globocnik. I then had the impression that these people were to be used -in the extensive Jewish labor camps run by Globocnik. Later, however, at -the end of 1942 or the beginning of 1943, I found out that they were -used to assist in the mass extermination of the Jews, which was then -already common knowledge in higher Party circles. - -15. Among the doctors who assisted in the Jewish extermination program -were Eberle and Schumann; Schumann performed medical experiments on -prisoners in Auschwitz. It would have been impossible for these men to -participate in such things without the personal knowledge and consent of -Karl Brandt. The order to send these men to the East could have been -given only by Himmler to Brandt, possibly through Bouhler. - - * * * * * - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 615-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 246 - - LETTER FROM DR. HILFRICH, BISHOP OF LIMBURG, TO THE REICH MINISTER OF -JUSTICE, 13 AUGUST 1941, PROTESTING AGAINST THE KILLING OF MENTALLY ILL - PEOPLE - -The Bishop of Limburg - Limburg/Lahm, 13 August 1941 -To the Reich Minister of Justice - Berlin - -Regarding the report submitted on July 16 (_sub. IV, pp. 6-7_) by the -Chairman of the Fulda Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Dr. Bertram, I -consider it my duty to present the following as a concrete illustration -of destruction of so-called “useless life”. - -About 8 kilometers from Limburg in the little town of Hadamar, on a hill -overlooking the town, there is an institution which had formerly served -various purposes and of late had been used as a nursing home. This -institution was renovated and furnished as a place in which, by -concensus of opinion, the above-mentioned euthanasia has been -systematically practiced for months—approximately since February 1941. -The fact is, of course, known beyond the administrative district of -Wiesbaden because death certificates from the Hadamar-Moenchberg -Registry are sent to the home communities. (Moenchberg is the name of -this institution because it was a Franciscan monastery prior to its -secularization in 1803.) - -Several times a week busses arrive in Hadamar with a considerable number -of such victims. School children of the vicinity know this vehicle and -say: “There comes the murder-box again.” After the arrival of the -vehicle, the citizens of Hadamar watch the smoke rise out of the chimney -and are tortured with the ever-present thought of depending on the -direction of the wind. - -The effect of the principles at work here are that children call each -other names and say, “You’re crazy; you’ll be sent to the baking oven in -Hadamar.” Those who do not want to marry, or find no opportunity, say, -“Marry, never! Bring children into the world so they can be put into the -bottling machine!” You hear old folks say, “Don’t send me to a state -hospital! When the feeble-minded have been finished off, the next -useless eaters whose turn will come are the old people.” - -All God-fearing men consider this destruction of helpless beings a crass -injustice. And if anybody says that Germany cannot win the war, if there -is yet a just God, these expressions are not the result of a lack of -love for the Fatherland but of a deep concern for our people. The -population cannot grasp the fact that systematic actions are carried out -which in accordance with paragraph 211 of the German Penal Code are -punishable with death. High authority as a moral concept has suffered a -severe shock as a result of these happenings. The official notice that -N. N. died of a contagious disease and, therefore, his body had to be -burned, no longer finds credence, and official notices of this kind -which are no longer believed have further undermined the ethical value -of the concept of authority. - -Officials of the Secret State Police, it is said, are trying to suppress -discussion of the Hadamar occurrences by means of severe threats. In the -interest of public peace, this may be well intended. But the knowledge, -and the conviction, and the indignation of the population, cannot be -changed by it; the conviction will be increased with the bitter -realization that discussion is prohibited by threats, but that the -actions themselves are not prosecuted under penal law. - -_Facta loquuntur._ - -I beg you most humbly, Herr Reich Minister, in the sense of the report -of the Episcopate of 16 July of this year, to prevent further -transgressions of the Fifth Commandment of God. - - [Signed] DR. HILFRICH - -I am submitting copies of this letter to the Reich Minister of the -Interior and to the Reich Minister for Church Affairs. - - [Initialed by the above] - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-429 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 281 - - EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT HOVEN, 24 OCTOBER 1946, - CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF CONCENTRATION CAMP INMATES TO EUTHANASIA - STATIONS FOR EXTERMINATION - - AFFIDAVIT - -I, Waldemar Hoven, being duly sworn, depose and state: - - * * * * * - -_Transfer of Inmates to the Bernburg Euthanasia Station for Extermination_ - -I became aware in 1941 that the so-called Euthanasia Program for the -extermination of the mentally and physically deficient was being carried -out in Germany. At that time, the camp commandant Koch called all the -important SS officials of the camp together and informed them that he -had received a secret order from Himmler to the effect that all mentally -and physically deficient inmates of the camp should be killed. The camp -commandant stated that higher authorities from Berlin had ordered that -all the Jewish inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp be included -in this extermination program. In accordance with these orders 300 to -400 Jewish prisoners of different nationalities were sent to the -euthanasia station at Bernburg for extermination. A few days later I -received a list of the names of those Jews who were exterminated at -Bernburg from the camp commandant and I was ordered to issue falsified -death certificates. I obeyed this order. This particular action was -executed under the code name “14 f 13”. I visited Bernburg on one -occasion to arrange for the cremation of two inmates who died in the -Wernigerode branch (Aussenkommando Wernigerode) of the Buchenwald -concentration camp. - - * * * * * - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 630-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 330 - - LETTER FROM HITLER TO KARL BRANDT AND BOUHLER, 1 SEPTEMBER 1939, - CHARGING THEM WITH THE EXECUTION OF EUTHANASIA - -[Letterhead: A. HITLER] - - Berlin, 1 September 1939 - -Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M. D., are charged with the -responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be -designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human -judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their -condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death. - - [Signed] A. HITLER - [Handwritten note] -Given to me by Bouhler on 27 August 1940 - [Signed] DR. GUERTNER - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1135 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 334 - - CONFIRMATION, 30 AUGUST 1940, OF THE TRANSFER OF MENTAL PATIENTS WITH - LIST OF TRANSFERRED PATIENTS ATTACHED - - CONFIRMATION - -In accordance with the decision of the State Ministry of the Interior -(Public Health Division), dated 8 January 1940, on orders from the Reich -Association of Mental Institutions [Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft der Heil -und Pflegeanstalten] and as responsible chief of the General Sick -Transport Company G.m.b.H. [Gemeinnuetzige Krankentransport G.m.b.H.], I -have taken charge of the transfer to a Reich institution of the patients -enumerated in the list below. - -Eglfing, 30 August 1940 [Signature illegible] - Commissioner of General Sick Transport Company G.m.b.H.[110] - - * * * * * - - TRANSFER MEMORANDUM FOR NIEDERNHART - -Handed over were— - -1. 149 patients with their own clothing, underwear, money, and -belongings. - -2. 149 files with personal records (case histories). - -3. A list of the amount of money of each patient. A receipt was made out -for this purpose. - -4. A list of the names. Eglfing-Haar, 30-8-40 - - [Signed] Head Nurse LOTTE ZELL - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1696-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 357 - -LETTER FROM DR. CONTI TO THE MENTAL HOSPITAL IN KAUFBEUREN, 16 NOVEMBER - 1939, REQUESTING THAT QUESTIONNAIRES (ATTACHED) BE FILLED OUT FOR - INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS; LETTER FROM THE GENERAL SICK TRANSPORT COMPANY TO -THE MENTAL HOSPITAL IN KAUFBEUREN, 12 MAY 1941, STATING THAT THE COMPANY -WOULD REMOVE MENTAL PATIENTS; REPORT FROM THE PROVINCIAL ASSOCIATION FOR -SOCIAL WELFARE IN SWABIA, 6 MAY 1941, THAT ALL TRANSFERRED PATIENTS HAD - DIED; LETTER FROM GAUM, 24 NOVEMBER 1942, TO DR. LEINISCH STATING THAT - EPILEPTICS WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH - -The Reich Minister of the Interior - - Berlin, NW 40, Koenigsplatz 6, 16 November 1939 - IV g 4178 /39-5100 - - Telephone: - Dept. Z, I, II, V, VIII 11 00 27 - Dept. II, IV, VI - (Unter den Linden 72); 12 00 34 - Tel. Address: Reichsinnenminister. - -To the Head of the Hospital for Mental Cases -Kaufbeuren - or his deputy in Kaufbeuren. - -With regard to the necessity for a systemized economic plan for -hospitals and nursing institutions, I request you to complete the -attached registration forms immediately in accordance with the attached -instruction leaflet and to return them to me. If you yourself are not a -doctor, the registration forms for the individual patients are to be -completed by the supervising doctor. The completion of the -questionnaires is, if possible, to be _done on a typewriter_. In the -column “Diagnosis” I request a statement as exact as possible, as well -as a short description of the condition, if feasible. - -In order to expedite the work, the registration forms for the individual -patients can be dispatched here in several parts. The last consignment, -however, must arrive in any case at this Ministry _at the latest_ by 1 -January 1940. I reserve for myself the right, should occasion arise, to -institute further official inquiries on the spot through my -representative. - - per proxi: DR. CONTI - -Certified: - (Sd.) [Illegible] - Administrative Secretary. - -Registration Form 1 To be typewritten -Current No. - Name of the Institution: - At: -Surname and Christian name of the patient: -At birth -Date of birth: Place: District: -Last place of residence District: -Unmarried, married, widow, widower, divorced: -Religion: Race[111]: -Previous profession: Nationality: -Army service when? 1914-18 or from 1-9-39. -War injury (even if no connection with mental disorder) Yes/No -How does war injury show itself and of what does it consist? - -Address of next of kin: -Regular visits and by whom (address): -Guardian or nurse (name, address): -Responsible for payment: -Since when in Institution -Whence and when handed over: -Since when ill: -If has been in other institutions, where and how long: -Twin? Yes/No Blood relations of unsound mind: -Diagnosis: -Clinical description (previous history, course, condition; in any case - ample data regarding mental condition): - -Very restless? Yes/No Bedridden? Yes/No -Incurable physical illness: Yes/No (which) -Schizophrenia: Fresh attack Final condition Good recovery -Mental debility: Weak Imbecile Idiot -Epilepsy: Psychological Average frequency of the attacks -alteration -Therapeutics (insulin, cardiazol, malaria, permanent result: - Salvarsan, etc. when?) Yes/No -Admitted by reason of par. 51, par. 42b German Penal Code, etc. through - -Crime: Former punishable offenses: -Manner of employment (detailed description of work): -Permanent/Temporary employment, independent Worker? Yes/No -Value of work (if possible compared with average performance of healthy - person) - - This space to be left blank. - - Place, Date - - Signature of the head doctor or his - representative (doctors who are not - psychiatrists or neurologists, please state - same). - -General Sick Transport Company, G.m.b.H. -Dept. II/d, H/K - - Berlin, W. 9, 12 May 1941 - Potsdamer Platz 1. - -To the Director of the Hospital - of the District Association of Swabia, -Kaufbeuren/Bavaria. - -Dear Director, - -By order of the Reich Defense Commissioner, I must remove mental cases -from your institution and from the branch at Irrsee to another -institution. A total of 140 persons are to be transported, 70 on 4 June -and 70 on 5 June. I forward you herewith Transport Lists Nos. 8, 9, 10, -and 11 in triplicate. The additional names on the lists are intended for -possible deficits (discharged meanwhile, died, etc.). - -The marking of the patients is most suitably done by means of a strip of -adhesive tape, on which the name is written in indelible pencil, to be -pasted between the shoulder blades. At the same time the name is to be -put on an article of clothing. - -The hospital reports and personal histories are to be prepared for the -transportation and to be handed to our director of transport, Herr -Kuepper; in the same way, the personal possessions of the patients, as -well as money and articles of value. - -I enclose property information cards and information cards as to the -defrayer of the expenses, which must be completed accurately and handed -in at the time of transportation. Money and articles of value, besides -being noted on the property information cards, must also be noted on -separate special lists (in duplicate). - -Transportation takes place: - - On 4 June, 8:46 a. m. from Kaufbeuren—70 patients - - On 5 June, 8:46 a. m. from Kaufbeuren—70 patients - -Our director of transport, Herr Kuepper, will visit you the previous day -in order to discuss further details with you. - -I further request you to provide the patients with food (2-3 slices of -bread and butter each and some cans of coffee). - - Heil Hitler! - (sd) [Illegible] - General Sick Transport Company, G.m.b.H. - - PROVINCIAL ASSOCIATION FOR SOCIAL WELFARE - SWABIA - - Address: Augsburg 1, P. O. Box Regierungspraesident - - Tel. No. 5842 - Cashier’s Office: Principal Govt. - Cashier’s Office Augsburg. - Post Office check account: Munich No. 1624 - -Director Dr. Faltlhauser, of the Hospital, - Kaufbeuren. - - Your reference: 2080. Your letter of 13 November 1940. - - Our reference: - (must always be - referred to). - - II-B-7-2. - - Augsburg, 6 May 1941 - -Concerning the transfer of patients. - -I have the honor to inform you that the female patients transferred from -your institution on 8 November 1940 to the institutions in Grafeneck, -Bernburg, Sonnenstein, and Hartheim all died in November of last year. - - [Signed] [Illegible] - -Enclosures: - - * * * * * - - Copy - -No. 5255 c 39 -State Ministry of the Interior - - Munich, 24 November 1942 - to the Director of the - Hospital, Kaufbeuren, - Obermed. Rat - Dr. Faltlhauser. - -To: Chief Physician, Dr. W. Leinisch - Guenzburg. - -Re letter of 13-11-1942. - -Dear Doctor, - -In your letter of 13-11-1942 you requested me to send suitable -epileptics for the carrying out of your research work. I had an -opportunity to discuss this with the Obermedizinalraete Dr. Faltlhauser -and Dr. Pfannmueller. Both will willingly deliver suitable patients to -you. For various reasons patients from the Institution at Kaufbeuren are -primarily to be chosen. If this institution has no suitable material, I -agree to the transfer of patients from Eglfing-Haar to Guenzburg for -your research work. I request that you get in touch with Dr. -Faltlhauser. - - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] GAUM - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 3896-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 372 - - EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. LUDWIG SPRAUER, 23 APRIL 1946, - CONCERNING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EUTHANASIA PROGRAM - - AFFIDAVIT - -I, Dr. Ludwig Sprauer, born on 19 October 1884, now living at Konstanz, -Baden, Salmannsweilergasse 2, make the following statement under oath: - -I passed my state examination for medicine in Freiburg in 1907, and -since 1919 was active in the civil service. During the following 14 -years I was active as Bezirksarzt in Stockach, Oberkirch, Konstanz. I -joined the NSDAP in 1933. From 1934 until 1944 I was the highest medical -officer of Baden and held the title Ministerialrat. My highest superior -was the Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick. As Frick’s -subordinate I traveled several times, perhaps every 2 to 3 months to -Berlin, to take part in discussions, conferences, etc., in the Reich -Ministry of the Interior. - -These took place in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, Berlin, Unter -den Linden 72-74; later in the Reich Ministry of the Interior office on -Voss-Strasse. On one such occasion in Berlin, Dr. Linden, -Ministerialdirigent in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, stated that -it was planned to introduce a euthanasia law. For military-political -reasons to create more space, the incurably insane were to be done away -with. The asylums thus vacated were in part asked for by the SS to be -used for national political educational institutions. - -A transportation company was founded for the execution of all these -measures. This company worked hand in hand with the so-called Reich -Committee for Research into Hereditary Ailments. This Reich concern was -managed by Frick’s Ministerialdirigent Dr. Linden. - -In the course of these measures from 1941 through 1944, thousands of -persons were transferred from Baden’s asylums to places like Hadamar, -Grafeneck, etc., and were killed there. The killings, however, were not -solely confined to the mentally sick. In the course of the same -campaign, steps were taken by order of the Reich Ministry of the -Interior to eliminate particularly old but also young people who were -ill. - -The persons killed in the course of this program included not only those -who were mentally sick, but also those who suffered from -arteriosclerosis, tuberculosis, cancer, and other ailments. Most of -those were older people who were inmates of public institutions at the -state’s expense, and who in a respectable society would have been taken -care of from public funds. These people were brought from public asylums -in Baden to Hadamar, Grafeneck, and other asylums and killed there. In -what manner they were killed, I do not know. In this way space was made -available in the institutions for the armed forces and for the National -Socialist educational institutions. - -The whole program was camouflaged on the outside and falsified death -certificates were made out. - - * * * * * - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-520 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 374 - -LETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF THE INSTITUTION FOR FEEBLE-MINDED IN STETTEN TO - DR. FRANK, 6 SEPTEMBER 1940, REQUESTING THAT EUTHANASIA BE CARRIED OUT - ONLY AFTER LEGAL BASIS WAS CREATED - -L. Schlaich, Stetten i. R. -Chief of the Institution - for Feeble-Minded and Epileptics. - Stetten, i. R., 6 September 1940 -To the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Frank -Berlin - -Dear Reich Minister, - -The measures at present being taken with mental patients of all kinds -have caused a complete lack of confidence in justice among large groups -of the people. Without the consent of relatives or guardians, such -patients are being transferred to different institutions. After a short -time they are notified that the person concerned has died of some -disease. In view of the abundance of death notices people are convinced -that these sick people are being done away with. - -Since from the institution under my direction altogether 150 of the -patients entrusted to me are to be transferred to such an institution -(75 on the 10th and 75 on the 13th of September) I take the privilege of -asking: Is it possible for such a measure to be carried out without a -pertinent law having been promulgated? Is it not the duty of every -citizen to resist under all circumstances an act not justified by law, -even forbidden by law, even if such acts are carried out by state -agencies? - -On account of the complete secrecy and camouflage under which the -measures are carried out, not only are the wildest rumors circulating -among the people (for example, that people unable to work on account of -age or injuries received during the World War have also been done away -with or are to be done away with), but it seems as if the selection of -the persons concerned is performed in a wholly arbitrary manner. - -If the state really wants to carry out the extermination of these or at -least of some mental patients, shouldn’t a law be promulgated, which can -be justified before the people—a law which would give everyone the -assurance of careful examination as to whether he is due to die or -entitled to live and which would also give the relatives a chance to be -heard, in a similar way, as provided by the law for the Prevention of -Hereditarily Affected Progeny? - -With regard to the patients entrusted to the care of our institutions in -the future, I urgently pray that everything possible be done to suspend -the execution of this measure until a clear legal situation has been -established. - - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] SCHLAICH - -I have forwarded a copy of this letter by the same mail to the chief of -the Reich Chancellery, Reichsminister Dr. Lammers. - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-660 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 377 - -NOTE BY SELLMER, 6 DECEMBER 1940, DESCRIBING THE METHOD OF SELECTION FOR - EUTHANASIA - -Subject: Mental Institutions - -The following is for your personal information. Please destroy this -sheet afterwards. - -For some time the inmates of mental institutions have been visited by a -commission which functions on orders from some very high office. The -commission’s task is to find out which inmates should be selected for -transport to certain other institutions. The commission bases its -decision on the records of the institution. The patients who are then -transferred are examined again in the institution designated by the -commission and then the decision is made whether they should be released -from their sufferings. - -The body itself is cremated and the ashes are placed at the disposal of -the relatives. Small mistakes in notifying are naturally always liable -to occur, and in the future it will not be possible to avoid them. The -commission itself is anxious to avoid all mistakes. I could give you -further information but I would like to abstain from it and beg you to -look me up when you visit the Gauleitung. - -I believe that we National Socialists can welcome this action which is -extraordinarily serious for the affected individual. I beg you, -therefore, to oppose all rumors and grumblings with the necessary -emphasis by representing our point of view in regard to these matters. - -Nuernberg, 6 December 1940 - - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] SELLMER - Gaustabsamtsleiter - [Stamp] -National Socialist German Labor Party - Gau Franconia - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-018 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 404 - - LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO BRACK, 19 DECEMBER 1940, REQUESTING THAT -EUTHANASIA STATION GRAFENECK BE DISCONTINUED AND THAT MOTION PICTURES BE - SHOWN TO DISPEL RUMORS - - Top Secret - 19 December 1940 - -SS Standartenfuehrer Viktor Brack -Staff Leader at Reichsleiter Bouhler’s Office -Berlin W 8 - -Dear Brack, - -I hear there is great excitement on the Alb because of the Grafeneck -Institution. - -The population recognizes the gray automobile of the SS and think they -know what is going on at the constantly smoking crematory. What happens -there is a secret and yet is no longer one. Thus the worst feeling has -arisen there, and in my opinion there remains only one thing, to -discontinue the use of the institution in this place and in any event -disseminate information in a clever and sensible manner by showing -motion pictures on the subject of inherited and mental diseases in just -that locality. - -May I ask for a report as to how the difficult problem is solved? - - Heil Hitler! - [Initialled] H[EINRICH] H[IMMLER] - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-842 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 405 - -LETTER FROM BRACK TO DR. SCHLEGELBERGER[112], 18 APRIL 1941, FORWARDING -FORMS FOR EUTHANASIA AND SUGGESTING THAT DEATH NOTIFICATIONS SHOULD NOT - FOLLOW A STEREOTYPED FORM - -Viktor Brack Oberdienstleiter - Berlin, 18 April 1941 - [Stamp] - 21 [Penciled] - 26 April 1941 -Dept: [Illegible] - [Handwritten] Gg. - Strictly Confidential -My dear Party comrade Dr. Schlegelberger, - [Handwritten] Top Secret - -According to agreement I send you herewith a _folder with forms_ needed -for your ascertainment and partial medical preparation; also another -folder with forms for further clerical elaboration resulting from the -death of the patient.[113] The records are secret, however, and I would -appreciate if you would keep them _under lock and key_. Some more things -are, of course, necessary for proper recording and administrative -routine, but I do not believe that they are of any interest to you. -Thereto belong, for instance, the death notifications to the relatives -of the patient. These are to be kept somehow different according to the -district and kind of relatives; they must be altered frequently to avoid -stereotype texts and therefore a sample letter would only irritate. I -would like to call your attention especially to the card files Nos. 13 -and 14. On their reverse sides you will find a list of authorities to be -informed. - -When again reviewing the files which you put at my disposal, I found -some details which ought to be clarified and settled; I would be -grateful to you for doing so. Therefore, I shall forward them to you -separately on Monday or Tuesday next week. - - Heil Hitler! - Respectfully yours - [Signed] BRACK - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-158 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 410 - -LETTER FROM HIRCHE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE MENTAL INSTITUTION BERNBURG, TO - CAMP COMMANDANT OF THE GROSS-ROSEN CONCENTRATION CAMP, 19 MARCH 1942, -WITH LIST OF INMATES TRANSFERRED FROM THE CONCENTRATION CAMP TO BERNBURG - -Mental Institution, Bernburg Bernburg, 19 March 1942 -Reference: B e. vH. Box 266 - Consultation only by - appointment - -To [Stamp] -Camp Commandant Concentration Camp Gross-Rosen -Concentration Camp Administration -Gross-Rosen Received: 23 March 1942 - Initials [Illegible] - -Registered -Subject: Transport of 19 March 1942 - -Enclosed you will find a list of the camp inmates who arrived here on 19 -March 1942 from your concentration camp. - - Heil Hitler! - [Signed] HIRCHE - -1 Enclosure - - * * * * * - -List of the camp inmates transferred on 19 March 1942 from the Gross-Rosen - concentration camp to Bernburg - -139/K1. 19-3-1942 Bernburg (Gross-Rosen) - [Signed] - [Signed] - - [Signed] - [Signed] - - 1942 -26746 10423 BIER, Rudolf Koeln - 2.11.1901 divorced 19.3. -26747 10424 BECKERS, Herm Hamburg - 18.9.1923 single 19.3. -26748 10444 BAJGELMANN, Isaak Czenstochau - 4.8.1909 single 19.3. -26749 10412 COHEN, Arthur Isr Dellwig-Westf. - 15.8.1908 single 19.3. -26750 10468 ECKHAUS, Herm Berlin C 2, - 1.12.1922 single 19.3. -26751 10395 EDEL, Gerh. Isr Nakel, - 30.5.1914 single 19.3. -26752 10440 EISNER, Otto Bochtitz - 26.4.1910. divorced 19.3. -26753 10439 FLEISCHNER, Rich Kolin/Elbe - 20.12.1902 married 19.3. -26754 10438 FRIED, Hans, Isr Budweis - 8.3.1919 single 19.3. -26755 10450 HAASE, Siegfried Schoenlanke - 3.8.1920 single 19.3. -26756 10436 HAUSER, Max Kastel - 15.12.1908 single 19.3. -26757 10394 HECHT, Jacob, Isr Hamburg-Altona - 18.10.1896 single 19.3. -26758 10410 LUBNICKI, Jacob Wuppertal/Elberf. - 28.6.1918 single 19.3. -26759 10409 MARKUSE, Esriel Warschau - 14.3.1897 widower 19.3. -26760 10470 NACHMANN, Erich Ulm/D. - 6.10.1907 married 19.3. -26761 10406 POLLAK, Heinr Lemberg - 30.9.1904 married 19.3. -26762 10517 PUFE, Otto Osternburg - 16.3.1917 single 19.3. -26763 10421 ROSENBAUM, Otto Isr Muehlheim/Ruhr - 2.6.1894 married 19.3. -26764 10486 ROBALEWSKI, Leo Kl. Tarpen - 15.12.1915 single 19.3. -26765 10595 ROSE, Reinhold Cochelna - 4.5.1907 single 19.3. -26766 10579 REKEL, Josef Tarnow - 10.1.1909 single 19.3. -26767 10405 ROUBICEK, Karl Horovice/Boehmen - 16.6.1906 single 19.3. -26768 10577 RWASKI, Wladislaus Kszywystock - 19.6.1919 single 19.3. -26769 10509 ROST, Hans Willi Apolda/Weimar - 15.7.1920 single 19.3. -26770 10606 SCHUENSMANN, Wilh Wittenberge - 23.8.1892 widower 19.3. -26771 10576 SKRATAK, Viktor Stazow - 5.3.1909 married 19.3. -26772 10575 SMIGIELSKI, Stanislaus Coloneg - 25.10.1918 single 19.3. -26773 10425 SOMMER, Arthur Isr. Frankfurt/M. - 4.12.1900 single 19.3. -26774 10578 SIKORSKI, Stanislaw Lublin - 27.1.192 single 19.3. -26775 10488 SOMMER, Wenzel Litzmannstadt - 7.8.1907 married 19.3. -26776 10404 SEITMANN, Simon Warschau - 17.12.1896 widower 19.3. -26777 10594 SARBACH, Heinz Erfurt - 28.4.1921 single 19.3. -26778 10483 SCHROFF, Karl Reilingen/ Baden - 11.6.1910 single 19.3. -26779 10484 SCHILLING, Aug Rake/Wohlau - 9.3.1896 single 19.3. -26780 10516 SCHUELER, Manfred Sonneberg/ Thuer. - Richard 17.9.21 single 19.3. -26781 10487 SCHMIDT, Johann Nuernberg - 8.4.1900 divorced 19.3. -26782 10426 SCHINDLER, Ernst Isr. Sandhofen/Mannh. - 7.6.1906 single 19.3. -26783 10427 SPIRA, Alfred Wien, - 20.11.1908 single 19.3. -26784 10454 STERN, Zudik Rozniatow - 28.9.1908 married 19.3. -26785 10485 STUKA, Wladimir Maehr. Sternberg - 8.2.1907 married 19.3. -26786 10453 WEINBERGER, Erich, Isr. Wien - 16.6.1916 single 19.3. -26787 10452 WEISZ, Ignaz Munkatesh/Ungarn - 30.6.1914 single 19.3. -26788 10503 WALLZAK, Theophil Hohensalza - 19.4.1907 single 19.3. -26789 10512 WELSER, Karl Pilgram/Prot. - 10.11.1918 single 19.3. -26790 10505 WALCZYK, Josef Bokow - 24.2.1908 married 19.3. -26791 10461 WUTKOWSKI, Willi Max Graudenz - 16.4.1902 divorced 19.3. -25792 10506 WOZNICZKA, Ignac Kadziak - 8.7.1916 single 19.3. -26793 10504 WASOLOWSKI, Marian Markstaedt - 29.11.1909 single 19.3. -26794 10507 WENDOLOWSKI, Josef Warschau - 7.1.1912 single 19.3. -26795 10604 WOLF, Karl Ged - 10.5.1903 single 19.3. -26796 10595 ZBYTNIEWSKI, Zymunt Czekarzowice - 1.1.1905 single 19.3. -26797 10592 ZBYTNIEWSKI, Zdzislaw Czekarzowice - 2.3.1910 married 19.3. -26798 10502 ZUCHOWSKI, Felike Lietzendorf/W. - 2.8.18. married 19.3. -26799 10565 ZIMMERMANN, Willi Dortmund - 10.2.1917 single 19.3. -26800 10521 ZDYBIK, Wladislaus Borownica - 5.4.1915 single 19.3. -26801 10480 ZIELKE, Karl Butow - 4.2.1904 married 19.3. -26802 10422 BIRNBERG, Markus Kolomea - 5.10.03 divorced 19.3. - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-907 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 412 - - EXTRACT FROM LETTER FROM DR. FRITZ MENNECKE TO HIS WIFE, 25 NOVEMBER - 1941, CONCERNING HIS ACTIVITIES AS PHYSICIAN SELECTING INMATES OF - CONCENTRATION CAMP BUCHENWALD FOR EUTHANASIA - -Letter No. 8 - - Weimar, 25 November 1941, - Hotel Elephant - 2058 hours - -At 7 o’clock tomorrow morning we will be awakened. At about 8 o’clock we -will have our coffee and then we will drive out in Schmalenbach’s car, -but he himself will soon leave for Dresden again. On Thursday and Friday -a meeting will be held in Pirna in connection with the action in which -problems of the future will be discussed and in which Schmalenbach will -take part as the medical adjutant of Herr Brack (Jennerwein). No experts -will be present * * *. The first working day at Buchenwald is over. At -8:30 this morning we were out there. At first I introduced myself to the -authoritative leaders. The deputy of the camp commandant is SS -Hauptsturmfuehrer Florstaedt; camp physician is SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. -Hoven. At first another 40 reports of a first portion of Aryans had to -be completed. The two other colleagues worked on these yesterday -already. Out of these 40 I worked up about 15. After this whole portion -had been worked up, Schmalenbach left for Dresden. He will not return -until our work here is done. Following this, the “examination” of the -patients was carried out, i. e., a presentation of the individuals and a -comparison with the entries taken from the files. We did not finish this -work until noon, because the other two colleagues worked only in theory -yesterday, so that I had to “re-examine” those whom Schmalenbach (and I -myself this morning) had prepared and Mueller did his people. At 12 -o’clock we stopped for lunch * * *. - -Afterwards we continued our examination until about 4 o’clock. I myself -examined 105 patients, Mueller 78 patients, so that finally a total of -183 reports were ready as a first group. As a second group a total of -1,200 Jews followed, all of whom do not need to be “examined”, but where -it is sufficient to take the reasons for their arrest from the files -(often very voluminous!) and to transfer them to the reports. Therefore, -it is merely theoretical work which will certainly keep us busy until -next Monday inclusive, perhaps even longer. Of this second group (Jews), -we completed today. I myself did 17, and Mueller 15. At 5 o’clock sharp, -“we threw away the trowel” and went for supper * * *. - -Exactly as the day I described above, the following days will pass—with -exactly the same program and the same work. After the Jews, another 300 -Aryans follow as a third group who will again have to be “examined”. -Therefore, we are busy here until the end of next week. Then on -Saturday, 6 December, we shall go home. - - * * * * * - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1007 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 413 - -CIRCULAR FROM GLUECKS TO CONCENTRATION CAMP COMMANDANTS, 27 APRIL 1943, - STATING THAT IN THE FUTURE ONLY INSANE PRISONERS SHOULD BE USED FOR - ACTION “14 F 13” (EUTHANASIA) - -SS Economic and Administrative Main Office -Division Chief D Concentration Camps -D I/1/File No.: 14 f 13/L/S.— -Secret Journal No. 612/43 - - Oranienburg, 27 April 1943. -Subject: Action 14 f 13 in Concentration Camps. - -Re: Our Order—D I/1/File No. 14 f 13/Ot/S.—Secret Diary No. - -32/43 of 15 January ’43. -Enclosures: None. - - [Stamp] - Top Secret - ——th copy - - To the Camp Commanders of the Concentration Camps - Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Flossenbuerg, - Neuengamme, Auschwitz, Gross-Rosen, Natzweiler, Stutthof, - Ravensbrueck, Riga, Hertogenbosch, Lublin, and Bergen-Belsen. - -Copy to: Chief of Amt DII, III in the building. - -The Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police has decreed that in -future only insane prisoners can be selected for the Action 14 f 13 by -the medical commissions appointed for this purpose. - -All other prisoners unfit for work (persons suffering from tuberculosis, -bedridden invalids, etc.) are definitely to be excluded from this -action. Bedridden prisoners are to be given suitable work which can be -performed in bed. - -The order of the Reich Leader SS must be strictly observed in the -future. - -Requests for gasoline for this purpose will therefore be discontinued. - - [Signed] GLUECKS - SS Brigadefuehrer and Generalmajor of the Waffen SS - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-891 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 414 - - DIRECTIVE OF THE REICH MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, 6 SEPTEMBER 1944, - ORDERING EUTHANASIA EXTENDED TO INSANE EASTERN WORKERS - -Reich Minister of the Interior - Berlin, 6 September 1944 -_g 9255/44_ -To: -_a._ The Reich Governor [Reichsstatthalter] (State government) -_b._ The Oberpraesidenten (administration of the provincial association) -_c._ The County Presidents -_d._ The Police President in Berlin -_e._ The Lord Mayor [Oberbuergermeister] of the Reich capital Berlin. - -Re: Mentally insane Eastern workers and Poles—Circular decrees of the - Reich Minister of the Interior of—_A g 9255/44-5100_—. - -1. Due to the considerable number of Eastern workers and Poles brought -into the German Reich for employment, the assignment of mental cases -among them to German asylums is constantly increasing. The purpose of -such assignments must be in any case the speediest possible recovery to -working ability. Thus every means of modern therapy must also be applied -to those mentally insane people. But due to lack of space in German -institutions there can be no justification for patients who are -considered incurable and, therefore, unable to work again in a -reasonably short time to remain permanently or for a long time in German -institutions. In order to avoid this, the following is ordered: - -2. In the following list I have established for each district in the -Reich a collective list for incurable mentally insane Eastern workers -and Poles. They should be assigned to those institutions immediately if -possible. If this is impossible due to urgency or to transportation -difficulties, the institution in question should deliver their Eastern -or Polish patients to the collecting institution in their respective -district within one month at the most. It is not necessary to carry out -the removal if the patient is considered able to leave the institution -within 6 weeks at the latest. - -3. It is the task of the collecting institution to decide whether the -restoration of working ability might be considered within a reasonable -period of time. - -4. The expenses from the date of registration in the collecting -institution are to be taken over by the head of the Central Financial -Clearing Office of the sanatorium in Linz/Upper Danube, P. O. Box 324, -which has to be informed immediately of such assignments. The fixed rate -for patients of the general class will be paid to the institutions. The -Eastern workers and Poles already assembled in collecting institutions -are to be reported on a list immediately to the Central Financial -Clearing Office. The expenses for those patient are transferred as from -1 October 1944 to the Central Accounts Office. - -5. After 4 weeks, at the latest, of the registration in the collecting -institution a short report on the prognosis of the case and on the -question of working ability has to be sent to the head of the Central -Financial Clearing Office. It is the task of that office to direct the -transportation of patients from the collecting institutions to nearby -special asylums in their home district. - -6. Only those people are to be considered as Poles who were brought into -the Reich for employment. This decree does not apply to the local Polish -population. - -7. The leaders of mental institutions in the districts, etc., are to be -informed by their superior officials, and the leaders of welfare and -private institutions by their competent higher administrative -authorities. The required copies are enclosed herewith. - - _List of the collecting institutions_ - -1. For East Prussia, Danzig, and West Prussia and Wartheland: Mental -Institution Tiegenhof. - -2. For Upper and Lower Silesia and the Sudetengau: Mental Institution -Lueben. - -3. For Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Kurmark, and Berlin: Mental Institution -Landsberg-Warthe. - -4. For Schleswig-Holstein and Hamburg: Mental Institution Schleswig. - -5. For Bremen, Weser-Ems, Hanover-East, Hanover-South, and Brunswick: -Mental Institution Lueneburg. - -6. For the Rhine province, Westphalia, and Lippe: Mental Institution -Bonn. - -7. For Baden, Westmark, Wuerttemberg, and Hohenzollern: Mental -Institution Schussenried. - -8. For Bavaria: Mental Institution Kaufbeuren. - -9. For Kurhesse, Nassau, and Land Hesse: Mental Institution Hadamar. - -10. For Thuringia-Land and Province Saxony, Anhalt: Mental Institution -Pfaffenrode. - -11. For the Alps [Alpen] and Danube districts: Mental Institution -Mauer-Oehling. - - BY ORDER: - - Wiesbaden, 11 September 1944 - Landeshaus - -11_a_ One copy to the County Mental Institution, Eichberg. - -With the request to acknowledge and to take further steps. - - BY ORDER: - LANDESRAT - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1553-PS - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 428 - - EXTRACT FROM THE FIELD INTERROGATION OF KURT GERSTEIN, 26 APRIL 1945, - DESCRIBING THE MASS GASSING OF JEWS AND OTHER “UNDESIRABLES” - - _Deposition of Kurt Gerstein_ - - * * * * * - -Hearing of the massacres of idiots and insane people at Grafeneck, -Hadamar, etc., shocked and greatly affected me, having such a case in my -family. I had but one desire—to gain an insight into this whole -machinery and then to shout it to the whole world! With the help of two -references written by the two Gestapo employees who had dealt with my -case, it was not difficult for me to enter the Waffen SS. - -From March 10 to June 2, 1941, I was given elementary instruction as a -soldier at Hamburg-Langehorn, Arnhem, and Oranienburg, together with 40 -doctors. Because of my twin studies—technology and medicine—I was -ordered to enter the medical-technology branch of the SS -Fuehrungshauptamt (SS Operational Main Office)—Medical Branch of the -Waffen SS—Amtsgruppe D (Division D), Hygiene Department. Within this -branch, I chose for myself the job of immediately constructing -disinfecting apparatus and filters for drinking water for the troops, -the prison camps, and the concentration camps. My close knowledge of the -industry caused me to succeed quickly where my predecessors had failed. -Thus, it was possible to decrease considerably the death toll of -prisoners. On account of my successes, I very soon became lieutenant. In -December 1941 the tribunal which had decreed my exclusion from the NSDAP -obtained knowledge of my having entered the Waffen SS. Considerable -efforts were made to remove and to persecute me but, due to my -successes, I was declared sincere and indispensable. - -In January 1942 I was appointed chief of the technical branch of -disinfection, which also included the branch dealing with strong poison -gases for disinfection. On 8 June 1942 SS Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther of -the RSHA entered my office. He was in plain clothes and I did not know -him. He ordered me to get a hundred kilograms of prussic acid and to -accompany him to a place which was only known to the driver of the -truck. We left for the potassium factory near Collin (Prague). Once the -truck was loaded, we left for Lublin (Poland). We took with us Professor -Pfannenstiel, Professor for Hygiene at the University of Marburg on the -Lahn. At Lublin, we were received by SS Gruppenfuehrer Globocnik. He -told us, “This is one of the most secret matters there are, even the -most secret. Whoever talks of this shall be shot immediately. Yesterday, -two talkative men died.” Then he explained to us that at the present -moment—17 August 1942—there were three installations: - - 1. Belcec, on the Lublin-Lvov road, in the sector of the Russian - demarcation line. Maximum 15,000 persons a day. Seen! - - 2. Sobiber, I do not know exactly where it is located. Not seen. - 20,000 persons per day. - - 3. Treblinka, 120 kilometers NNE of Warsaw. 25,000 persons per - day. Seen! - - 4. Maidanek, near Lublin. Seen—in the state of preparation. - -Globocnik then said: “You will have to handle the sterilization of very -large quantities of clothes, 10 or 20 times the amount of the clothing -and textile collection, which is only arranged in order to conceal the -source of these Jewish, Polish, Czech, and other clothes. Your other -duties will be to change the method of our gas chambers (which are run -at the present time with the exhaust gases of an old Diesel engine), -using more poisonous material, having a quicker effect: prussic acid. -But the Fuehrer and Himmler, who were here on August 15, the day before -yesterday, ordered that I personally should accompany all those who are -to see the installations.” - -Then Professor Pfannenstiel asked: “What does the Fuehrer say?” Then -Globocnik, now Chief of Police and SS, from the Adriatic Riviera to -Trieste, answered: “Quicker, quicker! Carry out the whole program!” And -then Dr. Herbert Linden, Ministerialdirektor in the Ministry of the -Interior said: “But would it not be better to burn the bodies instead of -burying them? A future generation might think differently of these -matters!” * * * Globocnik replied: “But, gentlemen, if after us such a -cowardly and rotten generation should arise that it does not understand -our work which is so good and so necessary, then, gentlemen, all -National Socialism will have been for nothing. On the contrary, bronze -plaques should be put up with the inscription that it was we, we who had -the courage to achieve this gigantic task. And Hitler said: ‘Yes, my -good Globocnik, that is the word, that is my opinion, too.’” - -The next day we left for Belcec, a small special station of two -platforms against a hill of yellow sand, immediately to the north of the -Lublin-Lvov road and railway. To the south, near the road were some -service houses with a signboard: “Belcec, Service Center of the Waffen -SS.” Globocnik introduced me to SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Obermeyer from -Pirmasens, who with great restraint showed me the installations. No dead -were to be seen that day but the smell of the whole region, even from -the main road, was pestilential. Next to the small station there was a -large barrack marked “Cloakroom,” and a door marked “Valuables.” Next to -that, a chamber with a hundred “barber’s” chairs. Then came a corridor, -150 meters long, in the open air and with barbed wire on both sides. -There was a signboard: “To the baths and inhalations”! Before us we saw -a house, like a bathhouse, with concrete troughs to the right and left -containing geraniums or other flowers. After climbing a small staircase, -we came to 3 garage-like rooms on each side, 4 × 5 meters in size and -1.90 meters high. At the back were invisible wooden doors. On the roof -was a Star of David made out of copper. At the entrance to the building -was the inscription, “Heckenholt Foundation.” That was all I noticed on -that particular afternoon. - -Next morning, a few minutes before 7, I was informed that in 10 minutes -the first train would arrive. And indeed, a few minutes later the first -train came in from Lemberg [Lvov]; 45 cars, containing 6,700 persons, -1,450 of whom were already dead on arrival. Behind the little -barbed-wire openings were children, yellow, half scared to death, women, -and men. The train stopped; 200 Ukrainians, forced to do this work, -opened the doors and drove all the people out of the coaches with -leather whips. Then, through a huge loud-speaker, instructions were -given to them to undress completely and to hand over false teeth and -glasses—some in the barracks, others right in the open air. Shoes were -to be tied together with a little piece of string handed to everyone by -a small Jewish boy of 4 years of age; all valuables and money were to be -handed in at the window marked “Valuables”, without receipt. Then the -women and girls were to go to the hairdresser who cut off their hair in -one or two strokes, after which it vanished into huge potato bags “to be -used for special submarine equipment, door mats, etc.”, as the SS -Unterscharfuehrer on duty told me. - -Then the march began. To the right and left, barbed wire; behind, two -dozen Ukrainians with guns. Led by a young girl of striking beauty they -approached. With Police Captain Wirth, I stood right in front of the -death chambers. Completely naked, they marched by, men, women, girls, -children, babies, even one-legged persons, all of them naked. In one -corner, a strong SS man told the poor devils in a strong deep voice: -“Nothing whatever will happen to you. All you have to do is to breathe -deeply; it strengthens the lungs. This inhalation is a necessary measure -against contagious diseases; it is a very good disinfectant!” Asked what -was to become of them, he answered: “Well, of course the men will have -to work, building streets and houses. But the women do not have to. If -they wish they can help in the house or the kitchen.” Once more, a -little bit of hope for some of these poor people, enough to make them -march on without resistance to the death chambers. Most of them, though, -knew everything, the smell had given them a clear indication of their -fate. And then they walked up the little staircase—and behold the -picture: Mothers with babies at their breasts, naked, lots of children -of all ages, naked too; they hesitate, but they enter the gas chambers, -most of them, without a word, pushed by the others behind them, chased -by the whips of the SS men. A Jewess of about 40 years of age, with eyes -like torches, calls down the blood of her children on the heads of their -murderers. Five lashes in her face, dealt by the whip of Police Captain -Wirth himself, drive her into the gas chamber. Many of them say their -prayers; others ask, “Who will give us the water for our death?” Within -the chambers, the SS press the people closely together; Captain Wirth -had ordered “Fill them up full.” Naked men stand on the feet of the -others. 700-800 crushed together on 25 square meters, in 45 cubic -meters! The doors are closed! - -Meanwhile the rest of the transport, all naked, waited. Somebody said to -me: “Naked, in winter! Enough to kill them!” The answer was: “Well, -that’s just what they are here for!” And at that moment I understood why -it was called the Heckenholt Foundation. Heckenholt was the man in -charge of the Diesel engine, the exhaust gases of which were to kill -these poor devils. SS Unterscharfuehrer Heckenholt tried to set the -Diesel engine going, but it would not start! Captain Wirth came along. -It was obvious that he was afraid because I was a witness of this -breakdown. Yes, indeed, I saw everything and waited. Everything was -registered by my stop watch. 50 minutes—70 minutes—the Diesel engine -did not start! The people waited in their gas chambers—in vain. One -could hear them cry. “Just as in a synagogue,” says SS Sturmbannfuehrer -Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel, Professor for Public Health at the -University of Marburg/Lahn, holding his ear close to the wooden door! -Captain Wirth, furious, dealt the Ukrainian who was helping Heckenholt -11 or 12 lashes in the face with his whip. After 2 hours and 49 -minutes—as registered by my stop watch—the Diesel engine started. Up -to that moment the people in the four chambers already filled were still -alive—4 times 750 persons in 4 times 45 cubic meters! Another 25 -minutes went by. Many of the people, it is true, were dead by that time. -One could see that through the little window as the electric lamp -revealed for a moment the inside of the chamber. After 28 minutes only a -few were alive. After 32 minutes all were dead! From the other side, -Jewish workers opened the wooden doors. In return for their terrible -job, they had been promised their freedom and a small percentage of the -valuables and the money found. The dead were still standing like stone -statues, there having been no room for them to fall or bend over. Though -dead, the families could still be recognized, their hands still clasped. -It was difficult to separate them in order to clear the chamber for the -next load. The bodies were thrown out blue, wet with sweat and urine, -the legs covered with excrement and menstrual blood. Everywhere among -the others were the bodies of babies and children. But there is no -time!—Two dozen workers were busy checking the mouths, opening them -with iron hooks—“Gold on the left, no gold on the right!” Others -checked anus and genitals to look for money, diamonds, gold, etc. -Dentists with chisels tore out gold teeth, bridges, or caps. In the -center of everything was Captain Wirth. He was on familiar ground here. -He handed me a large tin full of teeth and said: “Estimate for yourself -the weight of gold! This is only from yesterday and the day before! And -you would not believe what we find here every day! Dollars, diamonds, -gold! But look for yourself!” Then he led me to a jeweler who was in -charge of all these valuables. After that they took me to one of the -managers of the big store, Kaufhaus des Westens, in Berlin, and to a -little man whom they made play the violin. Both were chiefs of the -Jewish worker units. “He is a captain of the Royal and Imperial Austrian -Army, and has the German Iron Cross 1st Class,” I was told by -Hauptsturmbannfuehrer Obermeyer. - -The bodies were then thrown into large ditches about 100 × 20 × 12 -meters located near the gas chambers. After a few days the bodies would -swell up and the whole contents of the ditch would rise 2-3 meters high -because of the gases which developed inside the bodies. After a few more -days the swelling would stop and the bodies would collapse. The next day -the ditches were filled again, and covered with 10 centimeters of sand. -A little later, I heard, they constructed grills out of rails and burned -the bodies on them with Diesel oil and gasoline in order to make them -disappear. At Belcec and Treblinka nobody bothered to take anything -approaching an exact count of the persons killed. Actually, not only -Jews, but many Poles and Czechs, who, in the opinion of the Nazis, were -of bad stock, were killed. Most of them died anonymously. Commissions of -so-called doctors, who were actually nothing but young SS men in white -coats, rode in limousines through the towns and villages of Poland and -Czechoslovakia to select the old, tubercular, and sick people and have -them done away with shortly afterwards in the gas chambers. They were -the Poles and Czechs of category No. III, who did not deserve to live -because they were unable to work. Police Captain Wirth asked me not to -propose any other kind of gas chamber in Berlin, but to leave everything -the way it was. I lied—as I did in each case all the time—and said -that the prussic acid had already deteriorated in shipping and had -become very dangerous, that I was therefore obliged to bury it. This was -done right away. The next day, Captain Wirth’s car took us to Treblinka, -about 75 miles NNE of Warsaw. The installations of this death center -scarcely differed from those at Belcec, but they were even larger. There -were eight gas chambers and whole mountains of clothes and underwear -about 35-40 meters high. Then a banquet was given in our “honor,” -attended by all the employees of the institution. The -Obersturmbannfuehrer, Professor Pfannenstiel, Hygiene Professor at the -University of Marburg/Lahn, made a speech: “Your task is a great duty, a -duty useful and necessary.” To me alone he talked of this institution in -terms of “beauty of the task”; “humane cause”; and speaking to all of -them he said: “Looking at the bodies of these Jews, one understands the -greatness of your good work!” - - * * * * * - - TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-365 - PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 507 - - UNSIGNED DRAFT LETTER FROM DR. WETZEL TO ROSENBERG, 25 OCTOBER 1941, - DEALING WITH BRACK’S COLLABORATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF GAS CHAMBERS - FOR THE EXTERMINATION OF JEWS - - “Draft” [penciled notation] - -Reich Ministry for the Occupied Territories -Referent AGR. Dr. Wetzel - Berlin, 25 October 1941 - Secret -Re: Solution of the Jewish Question. -To the Reich Commissioner for the East. - - Re: Your Report of 4 October 1941 Concerning Solution of the - Jewish Question. - -Referring to my letter of 18 October 1941, you are informed that -Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer has declared -himself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of the necessary -shelters as well as the gassing apparatus. At the present time, the -apparatus in question are not on hand in the Reich in sufficient number; -they will first have to be manufactured. Since in Brack’s opinion the -manufacture of the apparatus in the Reich will cause more difficulty -than if manufactured on the spot, Brack deems it most expedient to send -his people directly to Riga, especially his chemist Dr. Kallmeyer, who -will have everything further done there. Oberdienstleiter Brack points -out that the process in question is not without danger, so special -protective measures are necessary. Under these circumstances, I beg you -to turn to Oberdienstleiter Brack, in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, -through your Higher SS and Police Leader, and to request the dispatch of -the chemist Dr. Kallmeyer, as well as of further aides. I draw attention -to the fact that Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, the Referent for Jewish -questions in the RSHA, is in agreement with this process. On information -from Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, camps for Jews are to be set up in Riga -and Minsk to which Jews from the old Reich territory may possibly be -sent. At the present time, Jews being deported from the old Reich are to -be sent to Litzmannstadt [Lodz], but also to other camps, to be later -used as labor in the East, so far as they are able to work. - -As affairs now stand, there are no objections against doing away with -those Jews who are not able to work—with the Brack remedy. In this way -occurrences would no longer be possible such as those which, according -to a report presently before me, took place at the shooting of Jews in -Vilna [Vilnyus] and which, considering that the shootings were public, -were hardly excusable. Those able to work, on the other hand, will be -transported to the East for labor service. It is self-understood that -among the Jews capable of work, men and women are to be kept separate. - -I beg you to advise me regarding your further steps. - - “N. d. H. M.” - [Lightly penciled notation, meaning copy for the Minister.] - “Wet 25/10” [in ink] - - PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL - BRANDT 18 - KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 15 - - EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. WERNER KIRCHERT, 29 JANUARY 1947, - STATING THAT KARL BRANDT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE EUTHANASIA PROGRAM - - * * * * * - -As a former medical officer of the Waffen SS, I had in 1939 a clinical -assignment as medical assistant in the University Clinic of the Charité -in Berlin. In September 1939 Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz summoned me -and asked me to make a list of the German lunatic asylums and the number -of their inmates, based on the data in the Reich medical calendar. The -reason, I was told, was the fact that, due to the evacuation of the West -Wall zone, the inmates had to be transferred to other asylums. After I -had finished compiling the list and had handed it in, Grawitz sent me to -Dr. Hevelmann at the Chancellery of the Fuehrer. There I learned that it -was actually a matter of _euthanasia_ of the insane, and that the -transfer was only a pretext. It was pointed out to me that it was on -direct orders from the Fuehrer and that Reichsleiter Bouhler had been -instructed to carry it out. - - * * * * * - -At first, three institutions in different parts of Germany were -mentioned. The insane people who were to come under the program were to -be selected, and Heyde, as chief expert, reserved the final decision for -himself. Everything was to be based on strictly medical views and only -such persons were to be selected who in a psychiatric sense could be -called “siech” (incurably ill). - - * * * * * - -During all the negotiations the names which were mentioned of the -persons who took part were Grawitz, Hevelmann, Heyde, Blankenburg, -Brack, and Bouhler. Not a single word was said about Dr. Karl Brandt. -Everything at that time was still in the early stages. - -Later the problem arose again, when I was department head with Reich -Health Leader Dr. Conti; that was at the end of the summer of 1941 when -the Fuehrer’s order came that _euthanasia_ should be stopped. But here -too the name of Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was never mentioned. - - * * * * * - - TRANSLATION OF KARL BRANDT DOCUMENT 19 - KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 16 - - AFFIDAVIT OF ALFRED RUEGGEBERG, 23 JANUARY 1947, CONCERNING RADIO - DISCUSSIONS ON EUTHANASIA - -I, Alfred Rueggeberg, factory owner in Marienheide, have been told by -the certifying notary that I am liable to punishment if I make a false -statement under oath. - -I declare under oath that my statement is true and is being made to be -presented as evidence to the Military Tribunal I, at the Palace of -Justice in Nuernberg, Germany: - -In summer 1945 I listened to a BBC broadcast from England, which was an -interview between the English radio commentator (as far as I remember it -was Mr. Robert Graham) and Pastor von Bodelschwingh of Bethel. - -In the course of this interview Pastor von Bodelschwingh pointed out -that a number of years ago the place now occupied by the radio -commentator had been occupied by Professor Brandt and Herr Bouhler who, -under Hitler’s orders, were discussing questions on euthanasia. - -Questioned by the commentator, Pastor von Bodelschwingh said almost -literally—in any case in effect—the following: - - “You must not picture Professor Brandt as a criminal, but rather - as an idealist.” - -This radio talk left me under the impression that Pastor Bodelschwingh -did not agree with the nature of Professor Brandt’s activities, yet he -had a favorable opinion of his human qualities. - -Gummersbach, 23 January 1947. - - [Signed] ALFRED RUEGGEBERG - - TRANSLATION OF KARL BRANDT DOCUMENT 23 - KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 19 - -AFFIDAVIT OF EDUARD WOERMANN, 18 JANUARY 1947. CONCERNING DISCUSSIONS OF - KARL BRANDT AND PASTOR BODELSCHWINGH ON EUTHANASIA - -The Director of the Institution Bethel -Dpt. Bethel-office - - Bethel, near Bielefeld, 18 January 1947 - AFFIDAVIT - -I, the undersigned Pastor Eduard Woermann in Bethel near Bielefeld, have -been informed that I am liable to punishment if I should give a false -statement under oath. I hereby affirm the following: - -The director of the Bodelschwingh institutions in Bethel near Bielefeld, -Pastor D. Friedrich von Bodelschwingh, who died 4 January 1946, had -several discussions with Professor Dr. Karl Brandt on the question of -“the extirpation of life not worth living”, in February 1941 and during -the following months. Pastor D. Bodelschwingh reported about this only -very discreetly within a very close circle of coworkers, to which I -belonged. - -He emphasized then that— - -1. Though they held fundamentally different views of these measures, he -had met a willingness on Professor Dr. Brandt’s part to hear the -objections. - -2. Professor Dr. Brandt had talked about “completely extinguished life”, -while other exponents of these measures based them upon the formula -“incurable” or “hopeless”. - -3. Professor Dr. Brandt was aware of the fallibility of these measures, -and he was prompted to act, not by brutality, but by a certain idealism -which was inherent in his conception of life. - -I give my permission for this statement to be presented as evidence to -the International Military Tribunal I in the Palace of Justice in -Nuernberg. - - [Signed] EDUARD WOERMANN - - TRANSLATION OF POKORNY DOCUMENT 19 - POKORNY DEFENSE EXHIBIT 27 - - AFFIDAVIT OF DR. HELMUTH WEESE, 19 MARCH 1947, CONCERNING USE OF - CALADIUM SEGUINUM FOR STERILIZATION - -I, the undersigned, Professor Dr. Helmuth Weese, resident of -Wuppertal-Elberfeld, have first been duly warned that I shall be subject -to punishment if I give a false affidavit. I declare under oath that my -statement is true and was made to be introduced as evidence before the -Military Tribunal I in the Palace of Justice of Nuernberg, Germany. - -When the question is put to me whether it is to be assumed that a -doctor, after studying the monograph by G. Madaus and Fr. E. Koch: -“Studies of Animal Experiments,” pertaining to the question of -sterilization by medication (by means of caladium seguinum -(dieffenbachia seguina)), Journal for the Entire Experimental Medicine, -vol. 109, p. 68, 1941, could become convinced that human beings can be -sterilized with caladium seguinum, I have the following to say about it: - -It is pointed out in the investigation referred to above that the -authors succeeded in sterilizing rats by feeding them with extract of -caladium seguinum. This is proved by mating experiments as well as by -anatomical investigations. In order to effect this sterilization of both -female and male rats, daily doses of ½ cc. for each rat weighing from -150-180 grams had to be administered 30-50 times and 40-90 times daily, -respectively, without being certain of successful results. To apply this -to a man weighing 70 kilograms, it would mean administering 200 grams of -extract daily. - -The investigations show abundantly that a considerable number of animals -treated perished from the poisonous effects of the caladium extract. The -extract therefore has no specific effect on the reproductive system. It -is still completely unknown whether these harmful secondary effects are -due to an element in the extract or some kind of accompanying -ingredients. - -Such types of unspecific injuries of the reproductive system are known -to be caused in man in a similar manner also by other agents, for -example, by the excessive misuse of nicotine, morphine, and the like, in -which case, however, they too appear only along with most severe -impairment of other functions. - -First of all every doctor faces the question as to whether these -experiments on rats are at all applicable to men. Madaus and Koch reject -this from the start, because for them it is merely a question of -determining whether the popular medical practice of making men impotent -by administering sizable quantities of caladium extract can be -corroborated by animal experiments. - -The prerequisite for administering caladium extract to human beings in -our countries would be the planting in Central Europe of caladium -seguinum, the habitat of which is in tropical South America. This seems -extremely improbable even to an only moderately experienced natural -scientist. Even if the planting were successful, this would not -necessarily mean that it produces, in our moderate zone, the same -effective agents in a sufficient quantity. - -Because of the unspecific effect of the caladium extract, its virulently -poisonous quality, the doubt as to whether it can be planted and used in -our moderate zone, I consider it extremely improbable that even a doctor -of only average education will attempt with conviction the experiment of -sterilizing human beings with caladium extract on the basis of the work -of Madaus and Koch. Convincing papers for the problem referred to other -than the work of Madaus and Koch are not known to me. - -Wuppertal-Elberfeld - -19 March 1947 - - [Signed] PROF. DR. HELMUTH WEESE - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS DR. MENNECKE[114] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: Doctor, were all the concentration camp inmates selected -actually insane? - -WITNESS MENNECKE: No. - -Q. Will you explain your answer please? - -A. By insanity we mean a disease which shows characteristic -interferences with mental activity. I will not describe them but merely -call them characteristics. That is what we mean by insanity. This -condition was not prevalent in the majority of cases among inmates in -the concentration camps. - -Q. Were any inmates selected only for the reason that they were unable -to work? - -A. That is possible. - -Q. Were people selected who had diseases other than those of the mind, -such as tuberculosis? - -A. Yes. Such people were also included. - - * * * * * - -_REDIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: The last question, Dr. Mennecke. Would you be willing to -tell the Tribunal how you now feel about your participation in the -“euthanasia” program? - -WITNESS MENNECKE: Yes. I am willing to say something on that subject. I -deeply regret the fact that I was drawn into this program in 1940. After -the collapse, when the total extent of the extermination of human beings -became known to the public—and to me for the first time—I was ashamed -that I had ever had any part in this program (even though in a -subordinated position), and I am still ashamed today. That is what I -have to say. - -MR. MCHANEY: Thank you, Dr. Mennecke. I have no further questions. - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT BRACK[115] - -_EXAMINATION_ - -JUDGE SEBRING: Witness, when adult persons were selected for euthanasia -and sent by the transport to euthanasia stations for that purpose, by -what methods were the mercy deaths given? - -DEFENDANT BRACK: The patients went to a euthanasia institution after the -written formalities were concluded—I need not repeat these formalities -here, they were physical examination, comparison of the files, etc. Then -the patients were led to a gas chamber and were there killed by the -doctors with carbon monoxide gas (CO). - -Q. Where was that carbon monoxide obtained, by what process? - -A. It was in a compressed gas container, like a steel oxygen container, -such as is used for welding—a hollow steel container. - -Q. And these people were placed in this chamber in groups, I suppose, -and then the monoxide was turned into the chambers? - -A. Perhaps I had better describe this in some detail. Bouhler’s basic -requirement was that the killing should not only be painless, but also -imperceptible. For this reason, the photographing of the patients, which -was only done for scientific reasons, took place before they entered the -chamber, and the patients were completely diverted thereby. Then they -were led into the gas chamber which they were told was a shower room. -They were then in groups of perhaps 20 or 30. They were gassed by the -doctor in charge. - -Q. Have you ever been present when a mercy death was accorded to these -people by that process? - -A. Yes. I had to be present because Bouhler wanted a report on whether -things were being done according to his orders, and in a dignified and -not a brutal fashion. - -Q. And you found from your inspection and witnessing these ceremonies -that they were being done in accordance with Bouhler’s orders, in a -dignified and painless sort of way? - -A. Yes. But let me say I was already convinced that the method was -painless. And I also saw that by this method the patient did not realize -that he was about to be killed. There were benches and chairs in the -chamber. A few minutes after the gas was let in, the patient became -sleepy and tired and died after a few minutes. They simply went to sleep -without even knowing that they were going to sleep, and that was one of -the most essential requirements. - -Q. When was the first time that you witnessed one of these procedures? - -A. The first time was on the occasion of an experiment with four such -patients. I think it must have been December 1939 or January 1940. I -know there was snow on the ground at the time. That is why I remember -these months. Bouhler, Conti, and I don’t know who else was there, there -were a few other doctors witnessing it for the first time. On the basis -of this experiment Hitler decided that only carbon monoxide was to be -used for killing the patients. - -Q. Well now, before or after that time had you tried any other gases or -any other means of administering euthanasia to these people? - -A. No, we—and by this I mean Bouhler’s organization—never used any -other gas or any other means. - -Q. You found the carbon monoxide quite satisfactory, so you never had to -resort to any other means? - -A. Yes. You can put it that way. - -Q. Now, where was it that these four people were accorded the privilege -of a mercy death in December, 1939 or 1940? - -A. That was in the first euthanasia station in Brandenburg. - -Q. And who were the subjects that were used for that experiment? - -A. They were four mentally incurable persons. - -Q. Do you know what institution they came from? - -A. No. That I don’t know. - -Q. Were they men or women? - -A. Men. - -Q. All men. What were their ages, were they young men, middle-aged men, -or elderly men; how would you classify them? - -A. I really don’t remember that. - -Q. What can you say in regard to their nationality; do you know anything -about that? - -A. They must have been Germans, they could not have been anything but -Germans, because according to regulations only German mentally defective -persons were used for euthanasia. - -Q. And you say Hitler was there? - -A. No. Hitler was not there, Bouhler was there. - -Q. Bouhler? - -A. Bouhler was there, Conti was there, and I believe Brandt. - -Q. Karl Brandt? - -A. Yes, Karl Brandt. - -Q. Do you remember any of the other defendants who were there? - -A. None of the defendants here was present except myself. - -Q. Well, then you remember that you, Bouhler, Conti, and Karl Brandt -were there; now do you remember any of the other gentlemen there at the -time? - -A. Yes. I said there were some more doctors there, but none of the -defendants here. - -Q. Dr. Pfannmueller, perhaps? - -A. No. Dr. Pfannmueller was certainly not there. They must have been -Berlin doctors. - -Q. When after December of 1939 or January of 1940 was it that you again -witnessed a euthanasia procedure? - -A. I should say that during 1940 in all the euthanasia institutions -existing at that time I personally assured myself once or twice that the -euthanasia was being correctly carried out. But I think I recollect that -the Hadamar Institute was only set up in 1941 and in that year I did not -witness euthanasia being carried out, so that this would eliminate the -Hadamar Institute. - -Q. The Institute at Hadamar, I think you said there were five other -stations? - -A. Yes. There were six altogether. - -Q. So that during the year 1940, you assured yourself that each of the -five stations on perhaps one, two or perhaps more visits that the -procedure insisted upon by Bouhler was being carried out in a humane -manner, in a painless manner by carbon monoxide? - -A. Completely imperceptible. - -Q. And now who were the people—let me put it this way—the first time -at Brandenburg there were four people, all men? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, can you remember on your subsequent visits in 1940 to the other -euthanasia stations who the people were, men or women? - -A. Both, sometimes men and sometimes women. - -Q. And what can you say in regard to their nationality? - -A. I can only say that they were only Germans, because I am perfectly -convinced that Bouhler’s regulations, which rested on an order from -Hitler, namely that no foreigners were to be given euthanasia, were -observed strictly by all the euthanasia institutions. - -Q. Where were these stations located, Witness? - -A. I don’t understand what you mean, where they were? - -Q. In what part of Germany or in what part of Poland, or in what part of -Czechoslovakia, in what part of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, in -what part of Denmark, in what part of Holland, in what part of France, -and in what part of Europe were these stations located? - -A. Now I understand you correctly. The first one was in Brandenburg on -the Havel in the neighborhood of Berlin about 70 or 80 kilometers away. -The next was the Grafeneck Institute, that was in Wuerttemberg. Another -institution was Sonnenstein and that is near Pirna near Dresden. There -was the Hartheim Institute which was near Linz on the Danube in Austria. -Then there was the Bernburg Institute on the Saale River near Dessau. -The Hadamar Institute is in Hesse. - -Q. Were any of these stations located in that portion of Poland which -was occupied by the Germans in military occupation? - -A. No. - -Q. And the six stations you have just named were all the stations known -to you that existed; there were just six? - -A. Those were the only ones, yes. - -Q. Witness, can you approximate the population of Germany as it existed -in the year of 1939 or the year of 1940? Were there some fifty or sixty -million people? - -A. No, roughly eighty to eighty-five million. - -Q. Now by that, when you say eighty to eighty-five million, you include -the entire German Reich, including Austria, the Sudetenland, and the -occupied territory? - -A. Austria and the Sudetenland, but not the occupied territory. - -Q. And you estimate roughly there were eighty-five million people? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Of that eighty-five million, how many Jews would you say were living -in Germany at the time who were German nationals? - -A. Maybe two or three million. - -Q. You are talking now about the Greater German Reich, including Austria -and the Sudetenland? - -A. Yes. - -Q. You estimate there were between two or three million who were German -nationals? - -A. Roughly, yes. - -Q. Now with two or three million German Jews amalgamated into the German -population of eighty-five million people who were German nationals, -explain, if you will, to the Tribunal why it was that the German Jews -were excluded from the Euthanasia Program, if as you say it was a -salutary program according to people the privilege of a mercy death for -taking them out of their misery; why was it that the German Jews were -not included in that program? - -A. I have already stated that. As Bouhler explained it, the blessing of -euthanasia should be granted only to Germans. - -Q. I understand that, but I thought you said at that time there were -between two and three million Germans in Germany, German citizens who -were Jews? - -A. Yes. That is so. - -Q. Why were they not included in the program, if the privilege of the -program was going to be accorded to all Germans? - -A. The reason possibly lies in the fact that the government did not want -to grant this philanthropic act to the Jews. - -Q. They wanted to grant this philanthropic act to all Aryan Germans, but -did not want to grant it to German Jews, and they did not want to grant -this philanthropic act to German soldiers of the first war, who had -received mental injuries growing out of their war wounds. Is that -correct? - -A. As I have already said, that was a great inconsistency in this -procedure and we often protested. However, it was determined by -considerations of a military and psychological nature. - -Q. Thank you. - - * * * * * - -Q. Witness, I think you said yesterday afternoon that these six -euthanasia stations were located at Bernburg, Brandenburg, Hadamar, -Hartheim, Grafeneck, and Sonnenstein, is that correct? - -A. Yes. That is correct. - -Q. When were the gas chambers at these euthanasia stations built? - -A. When the institutions were set up as euthanasia institutions. - -Q. Can you remember the approximate dates? - -A. No. I cannot remember the dates. I just know the years when the -institutions became euthanasia institutions—approximately. I know that -Grafeneck and Brandenburg were the first institutions to become -euthanasia institutions. It began at the end of 1939 at the earliest, -the beginning of 1940 at the latest. Sonnenstein and Hartheim were set -up in the early summer 1940. In the early summer or spring. The -institution at Bernburg was established in the fall or winter of 1940, -Hadamar, in the winter or spring of 1941. This is as accurate as I can -give it. - -Q. You said the winter or spring of 1941. Do you mean the winter of 1940 -or the spring of 1941? You said the winter or spring of 1941. - -A. If I say winter ’41, I mean January ’41, but it might have been March -too, I don’t know. - -Q. And you think that Hadamar was the last one that was set up? - -A. I am quite certain that Hadamar was the last one. - -Q. Now, of what materials were these gas chambers built? Were they -movable gas chambers, very much like the low-pressure chambers that -Professor Dr. Ruff talked about, or were they something that was built -permanently into the camp or installation? - -A. No special gas chamber was built. A room suitable in the hospital was -used, a room of necessity attached to the reception ward and to the room -where the insane persons were kept. This room was made into a gas -chamber. It was sealed, given special doors and windows, and then a few -meters of gas piping were laid, or some kind of piping with holes in it. -Outside this room there was a container, a compressed gas container with -the necessary apparatus, that is a pressure gauge, etc. - -Q. Now what department had the responsibility for constructing or -building these gas chambers, what department of the Party or of the -government? - -A. No office of the Party. I don’t understand the question. - -Q. Somebody had to build these chambers. Who gave the orders and who had -the responsibility of building them, was that your department? - -A. I assume the orders were given by the head of the institution, but I -don’t know who actually did give the orders. - -Q. In other words, were these chambers not built according to some -specifications, plans and specifications? - -A. I can’t imagine that, every chamber was different. I saw several of -them. - -Q. Do you know what department gave the order for having the chambers -built? Was that your department under Bouhler? - -A. No. It was Bouhler himself. - -Q. And he gave the order to the various heads of institutions to install -this chamber, is that correct? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, how would the heads of each of these institutions know how to -install a gas chamber unless there were certain plans and specifications -given to them? - -A. I never saw any such plan. I don’t know of any. - -Q. Would you know how to go out and build a gas chamber unless some -engineer or planner had told you? Certainly I wouldn’t. - -A. I don’t know whether I would either. Presumably he called in an -engineer. - -Q. That’s what I’m trying to say. What engineer or group of engineers -was responsible for seeing that these gas chambers were built so that -they would do the job they were supposed to do? - -A. There was certainly no group of engineers. I presume there was -somebody at the institutions who had enough technical ability to do it. -I don’t know. - -Q. Then, so far as you know, someone at one of these institutions would -be told by Bouhler to construct a gas chamber and he would call—the -head of the institution then would call on someone, you don’t know whom, -to go out and build the chamber? Is that correct? - -A. That is how I imagine it. - -Q. Well, wouldn’t it make a considerable difference whether the chamber -was to be constructed for euthanasia by carbon monoxide or by some other -means? Wouldn’t there have to be some technical information available to -the head of the institution so that he could give directions to his -mechanic to build the thing to do the thing it was supposed to do? - -A. I must say honestly I really don’t know anything about that. I can’t -judge. - -Q. Do you know whether or not any department of the government, under -Bouhler, or under Brandt, or under anybody else, was responsible for -seeing that the gas apparatus was installed properly? - -A. I don’t know, but I don’t believe so because I would probably have -heard of it. - -Q. How large were these gas chambers? - -A. They were of different sizes. It was simply an adjoining room. I -can’t remember whether they were 4 × 5 meters, or 5 × 6 meters. Simply -normal sized rooms, but I can’t tell you the exact size. It was too long -ago. I can’t remember. - -Q. Were they as large as this courtroom? - -A. No. They were just normal rooms. - -Q. Well, a man of your intelligence must have some idea about the size -of these rooms. The assertion “normal size” doesn’t mean anything in -particular. - -A. By that I mean the size of the normal room in a normal house. I -didn’t mean an assembly room or a cell either. I meant a room, but I -can’t tell you the exact size because I really don’t know it. It might -have been 4 × 5 meters, or 5 × 6 meters, or 3½ × 4½, but I really don’t -know. I didn’t pay much attention to it. - -Q. Have you ever visited a concentration camp or a military camp of any -kind? - -A. I visited a concentration camp, and I was once in a military camp as -a soldier. - -Q. Have you ever seen a shower room or shower bath built into a camp of -that kind where the inmates of concentration camps, or where soldiers in -a military barracks, can take showers? - -A. Yes, I have. In my own barracks. - -Q. And would you say that this euthanasia room at the various -institutions was about that dimension? - -A. I think it was much smaller. - -Q. Well, perhaps we can get at it this way. I thought perhaps you knew -something about the mechanical construction that I supposed everybody -knew something about. This room of yours that you talk about, how many -people would it accommodate? - -A. Yesterday I said that according to my estimate it might have been -twenty-five or thirty people. - -Q. And that is still your estimate today? I remember yesterday that you -said that, and that is still your estimate today, it could comfortably -take care of twenty-five or thirty people? - -A. Yes. That’s my estimate. - -Q. Now, the carbon monoxide gas that was used for the purpose of -euthanasia, where did it come from? I know you said yesterday that it -came out of tubes very much like oxygen came in, but where did the tubes -come from? Do you know? - -A. I don’t know. They were the normal steel containers which can be seen -everywhere. - -Q. Do you know how they reached the camp? - -A. That I don’t know. - -Q. Do you know whether any department of the government was responsible -for furnishing the gas to the camp? - -A. No. They were probably bought. - -Q. You think then that perhaps the superintendent of the institution, if -he wanted some carbon monoxide gas, would just walk down-town and walk -into a store and buy a steel tube of it and put it under his arm and -carry it on back to the camp; pay for it out of his pocket? - -A. No, not out of his own pocket but through the institution. The -institutions bought them, I mean. - -Q. Do you know from what sources the institution bought it? - -A. Yes. All the funds came from the Reich Ministry of the Interior. They -were advanced by the Party treasurer. - -Q. Well, now, at that time, wasn’t virtually everything in Germany of a -critical nature on some sort of priority? Do you understand what I mean? - -A. No. - -Q. Would not the diversion of this carbon monoxide in tubes to the -various institutions have to be given a priority rating and approved by -someone or by some department in the government and thus be made -available to the hospitals? Don’t you understand what I mean? - -A. Yes, I understand. I have no idea, but I don’t believe so. Why? - -Q. What was done with the bodies of these people after mercy deaths were -given? - -A. When the room had been cleared of gas again, stretchers were brought -in and the bodies were carried into an adjoining room. There the doctor -examined them to determine whether they were dead. - -Q. Then what happened to the bodies? - -A. When the doctor had determined death, he freed the bodies for -cremation and then they were cremated. - -Q. After he had freed the bodies, had determined that they were dead, -they were then cremated? Is that correct? - -A. Yes. - -Q. There was a crematory built for every one of these institutions? - -A. Yes. Crematoriums were built in the institutions. - -Q. Do you know whether or not—what department or agency, either under -the government, that is, the Reich government, or under the -superintendent of the various institutions, was responsible for this -detail of cremation? - -A. I don’t understand. Bouhler ordered the cremation. Bouhler ordered, -on principle, that the bodies were to be cremated after death. There was -no office for that. - -Q. Was there any report made to anyone of the fact that certain people, -who had been selected for euthanasia had finally arrived at these -institutions, had actually been accorded the privilege of mercy deaths -and then had been cremated? - -A. No. I know nothing about that. - -Q. No records were kept at all? - -A. Oh, I thought you said reports. Now you mean records? - -Q. I don’t care what you call it. There must have been a report or -record of some kind kept of these people. Was there? - -A. Yes, of course. Not only the case histories, but the personal data of -the individual patients were collected at the euthanasia institution and -there the death records were added and whatever else was available. In -my direct examination I pointed out that there were announcements to the -agencies concerned, for example, the guardianship court. All these files -were sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4. - -Q. They were finally sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Isn’t it true that only in that way could an accurate record or -report of this program be made? - -A. I didn’t understand. Whether this fact created accurate records about -the people, or whether records were kept? - -Q. Records were kept, were they not, of this entire transaction of each -individual from the time he was expertized? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Until finally he was cremated? - -A. Yes. - -Q. And those records were filed with T-4? - -A. Yes. They were kept there. - -Q. Now, I believe you said that these euthanasia chambers were built to -resemble shower rooms? - -A. Yes. That’s how I remember it. - -Q. And the only people that were accorded euthanasia were people who -were incurably insane, I think you said? - -A. Yes. - -Q. These were people who, as you put it, on ethical grounds did not have -the mental capacity either to consent or to resist the decision to grant -them euthanasia, and that consequently as you viewed it, it was a humane -procedure to accord them a mercy death; is that correct, did I -understand you correctly? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Now, were these people, the ones whom you saw, so insane as not to -understand where they were or what was going on around them? - -A. I can only say that of course I am not a doctor and therefore not in -a position to judge the condition of such patients, but when I was at -such institutions I myself saw that the patients, in as far as they were -able to walk, went into these chambers or rooms where they were told to -go without any objection and sat down on the benches or lay down and -were quite quiet. - -I don’t know to what extent they realized where they were. I do know, -however, that they were not in any way worried, but perfectly calm. -Bouhler had ordered that the doctors were to arrange things so that the -patients would not realize what was being done to them. - -Q. And that was the reason that the gas chambers were constructed to -resemble shower rooms, I suppose? - -A. Yes. - -Q. And these people thought that they were going in to take a shower -bath? - -A. If any of them had any power of reasoning, they no doubt thought -that. - -Q. Well now, were they taken into the shower rooms with their clothes -on, or were they nude? - -A. No. They were nude. - -Q. In every case? - -A. Whenever I saw them, yes. - -Q. And you said, I believe, yesterday that you witnessed perhaps some 10 -to 12, or 15, or 20 occasions when groups were accorded mercy deaths? - -A. No. I said that I visited each of the institutions, with the -exception of Hadamar, at least once, perhaps twice. - -Q. And on each occasion did you witness the according of a mercy death -to a group? - -A. Yes. - -Q. And I believe you said yesterday that some of these groups were -adults, that some groups were men, other groups were women, and that on -some occasions the groups were made up of both men and women, is that -correct? - -A. No. Apparently I did not express myself clearly. They were either men -or women, but I saw both. - -Q. And you think perhaps you saw as many as 20 to 30 comfortably -accommodated in the chamber? - -A. Yes, quite comfortably. There was plenty of room. - - * * * * * - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. HOCHWALD: You never cooperated in the program of extermination of -the Jews, is that correct? - -DEFENDANT BRACK: No. I personally never did. - -Q. Is the name Eichmann, Obersturmbannfuehrer Adolf Eichmann, familiar -to you? - -A. Yes. I know the name now. - -Q. You did not know him before? That is, during the war? - -A. No, not to my knowledge. - -Q. Did you know anything about his activities during the war from your -own knowledge, not what you heard now? - -A. I cannot remember ever having heard the name Eichmann before. - -Q. In order to keep the record straight I would like to offer Document -NO-2737. This is an excerpt from the judgment of the International -Military Tribunal about the activities of Eichmann, and I would like to -ask the Tribunal whether I should give an identification number to this -document or whether the Tribunal will take judicial notice of the -document. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: While the Tribunal will take judicial notice of -the document mentioned, it would be convenient to have an identification -number for the purpose of identification only. - -DR. HOCHWALD: So it will be Prosecution Exhibit 505 for identification; -extract from the judgment of the International Military Tribunal:[116] - - “In the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for the ‘final - solution’ of the Jewish question in Europe. This ‘final - solution’ meant the extermination of the Jews, which early in - 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of - an outbreak of war, and a special section in the Gestapo under - Adolf Eichmann, as head of Section B-4 of the Gestapo, was - formed to carry out the policy * * * - - * * * * * - - “* * * Adolf Eichmann, who had been put in charge of this - program by Hitler, has estimated that the policy pursued - resulted in the killing of 6,000,000 Jews, of which 4,000,000 - were killed in the extermination institutions.” - -Did you ever have any conferences or discussions with Eichmann -concerning the extermination of the Jews and the solution of the Jewish -problem? - -DEFENDANT BRACK: I already said that I did not remember having heard the -name Eichmann at all. - -Q. I want to put to you NO-997, which is Prosecution Exhibit 506 for -identification, your Honors. This is a draft of a letter from the Reich -Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories to the Reich Commissioner -for the East: - - “Solution of the Jewish Problem. - - “Reference: Your report of 4 October 1941, concerning the - solution of the Jewish problem. - - “I have no objection against your suggestion for the solution of - the Jewish problem. Attached please find a memorandum concerning - the conversation between my expert consultant, Amtsgerichtsrat - Dr. Wetzel, Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the - Fuehrer, and Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, expert consultant to the - Reich Security Main Office. Please note the details of the - matter from this memo. Will you please take the necessary steps - at the Reich Security Main Office and with Oberdienstleiter - Brack from the Chancellery of the Fuehrer via your Higher SS and - Police Leader. Please keep me informed. - - [Handwritten] F. d. H. M. - [For the Minister] - - “2d Copy - “(_a_) Reich Security Main Office - “(_b_) Chancellery of the Fuehrer - Attention: Oberdienstleiter Brack, - Copy of (1), including enclosure for information.” - -Did you receive a copy of this letter? - -A. May I first ask you what the date of this letter is? - -Q. Only 1941 is mentioned here. But that is the date I told you. Did you -receive a copy of this letter, Herr Brack? - -A. I did not receive a copy of it nor did I even see a copy of that -letter, nor do I know this Amtsgerichtsrat Wetzel. - -Q. Did you have a conference with Eichmann on this problem, on the -solution of the Jewish question? - -A. I already said I cannot even remember the name Eichmann, nor can I -remember the name Wetzel. - -Q. Do you know anything about the matters discussed at this conference -concerning the solution of the Jewish problem? - -A. No. I know nothing. - -Q. You have no idea. You never made any suggestions as to what kind of -treatment or what kind of gas chambers should be used for the solution -of the Jewish problem? You never did that? - -A. I can remember nothing in this connection. - -Q. You were questioned by the Tribunal last Friday as to whether plans -were made for the construction of the gas chambers in the euthanasia -stations or whether an engineer or specialist was ordered to assist the -directors of the stations in setting up such gas chambers, were you not? - -A. Yes. - -Q. You were not able to give any information to the Tribunal on that -fact, were you? - -A. No. I said I didn’t concern myself with these matters. - -Q. Is the name Kallmeyer, K-a-l-l-m-e-y-e-r, familiar to you? - -A. Yes. But I can’t remember in which connection. - -Q. His wife executed an affidavit for you here. (_Brack 39, Brack Ex. -23._) Do you remember him now? - -A. Yes. Yes, I remember him now. - -Q. Was Kallmeyer the engineer, or was he a chemist, who made these plans -for gas chambers and assisted the directors in euthanasia stations in -setting up these gas chambers? - -A. No. Kallmeyer had to check that the gas chambers were operating -properly, but I don’t believe he made any plans for that purpose. - -Q. Kallmeyer was the man who supervised these gas chambers, was he not? - -A. I believe so, yes, but not for long, only for a short time. - -Q. All right. And does the name Kallmeyer refresh your memory as to -eventual plans you made together with Eichmann about the solution of the -Jewish problem, Herr Brack? - -A. No. - -Q. I want to put to you Document NO-365, which will be Prosecution -Exhibit 507 for identification, your Honors. This is a draft from the -Reich Ministry for the Occupied Territories dated Berlin, 25 October -1941. - - “Referent AGR. Dr. Wetzel - - “Re: Solution of the Jewish Question - - “1. To the Reich Commissioner for the East - - “Re: Your Report of 4 October 1941 Concerning Solution of the - Jewish question - - “Referring to my letter of 18 October 1941, you are informed - that Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer - has declared himself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of - the necessary shelters, as well as the gassing apparatus. At the - present time the apparatus in question are not on hand in the - Reich in sufficient number; they will first have to be - manufactured. Since in Brack’s opinion the manufacture of the - apparatus in the Reich will cause more difficulty than if - manufactured on the spot, Brack deems it most expedient to send - his people direct to Riga, especially his chemist Dr. Kallmeyer, - who will have everything further done there. Oberdienstleiter - Brack points out that the process in question is not without - danger, so that special protective measures are necessary. Under - these circumstances I beg you to turn to Oberdienstleiter Brack, - in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, through your Higher SS and - Police Leader and to request the dispatch of the chemist Dr. - Kallmeyer as well as of further aides. I draw attention to the - fact that Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, the referent for Jewish - questions in the RSHA, is in agreement with this process. On - information from Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, camps for Jews are - to be set up in Riga and Minsk to which Jews from the old Reich - territory may possibly be sent. At the present time, Jews being - deported from the old Reich are to be sent to Litzmannstadt, - [Lodz] but also to other camps, to be later used as labor in the - East so far as they are able to work. - - “As affairs now stand, there are no objections against doing - away with those Jews who are unable to work with the Brack - remedy. In this way occurrences would no longer be possible such - as those which, according to a report presently before me, took - place at the shooting of Jews in Vilna and which, considering - that the shootings were public, were hardly excusable. Those - able to work, on the other hand, will be transported to the East - for labor service. It is self-understood that among the Jews - capable of work, men and women are to be kept separate. - - “I beg you to advise me regarding your further steps.” - -Herr Brack, are you still going to maintain what you said here in direct -examination, namely, that you tried to protect the Jews and to save the -Jews from their terrible fate and that you were never a champion of the -extermination program? - -A. I should even like to maintain that misuse, terrible misuse, was made -of my name. I see from this letter and from the date of this letter that -all these negotiations were carried out at a time when I was far away -from Berlin, when I was on sick leave. If I have the possibility I hope -I shall be able to bring witnesses who will testify to that effect. I -must frankly admit that at this period something was going on which -entirely contradicted my opinion, but this could only have been done -under misuse of my name and my agency. I was not willing to participate -in these things. - -Q. Can you tell me, Herr Brack, where Riga and Minsk are located? - -A. Riga is on the Baltic in Latvia, and Minsk is in Russia. - -Q. These two places were outside Germany, were they not? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Prosecution has no further questions at this time. - -EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS WALTER E. SCHMIDT[117] - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of directives were given at that time about the -execution of the Euthanasia Program? - -WITNESS SCHMIDT: Well, the same directives as were finally carried -out—to move the invalids from lunatic asylum to the euthanasia -institution. I personally received subsequently the orders from the -Reich committee which had already been discussed during that meeting. - -Q. Did you at that time consider that an order for murder? - -A. In no way at all. The jurists in Berlin told us that this was a legal -matter, that it was a Hitler decree or a law which had been duly -approved; also that the jurists had discussed whether Hitler was -authorized to issue such a decree and decided in the affirmative, and we -were told that this was a matter which was a quite legal— - -Q. Witness, a little slower. - -A. That it was a legal task of the State which had already been planned -in 1932 and which was also being planned in other countries and that we -would not incriminate ourselves in any way, on the contrary, a sabotage -of this order would be a criminal offense. The question of secrecy was -also discussed in detail and it was stated that this was a kind of law -now; that the patients were not to have knowledge of such a measure -beforehand because otherwise they would be excited, and that was -probably the main reason why this law could not be published. In -addition at that time we were at war and those kinds of measures should -be kept secret in the interior. - -Q. Who were the people to be concerned by the Euthanasia Program? - -A. The incurably sick. However, it was not quite clear to me where the -limit was to be drawn. For me personally, such a measure could only be -considered in the cases of persons who were dying anyhow. - -Q. Was there any mention made at that time of “useless eaters” and other -economic points of view? - -A. I never actually heard the words “useless eaters” at all during the -war. - -Q. Was it mentioned at the time that the institution had to be kept free -for other purposes, and that that was the reason? - -A. The reason for this measure was only touched upon briefly. We were -told that these were tasks of the state which had become urgent because -of the war and, yes, of a eugenic nature. - -Q. How about the children? - -A. At the time there was always talk about the last medical aid. - -Q. Well, if I understood you correctly, the decisive viewpoint was the -medical one? - -A. Yes. I only observed it from the medical point of view. - -Q. Now was the procedure actually carried out from this point of view? -Or didn’t this so-called program actually go far beyond its limits in -its execution? - -A. The limits of the program were certainly exceeded to a great extent. -I personally did not see it myself, but on the basis of the reports I -received, I must say that excesses certainly took place. - -Q. Witness, how was it in your institution with reference to excesses? - -A. In my institution procedure was taken only on the basis authorized by -law. We also had a therapy station. Of course, I must say, it was not -very nice to watch these transports. - -Q. Now, you said that later on Eastern workers were picked up? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Wasn’t that in excess of the original order which you received? - -A. I cannot say that. I don’t know. - -Q. Do you know where the order came from to transport these people away? - -A. From the Ministry of the Interior. It was given to us by the superior -office of the Ministry of the Interior. - -Q. You mean the Reich Minister of the Interior? - -A. Yes. - -Q. You further mentioned that the action was concluded in August 1941, -that it was stopped. Do you know the reason for this? - -A. Yes. I do not know the official reason, but I heard of it -unofficially. I heard that Herr von Galen protested, and that was -probably why the whole procedure was stopped. I emphasize that I don’t -know for certain, but anyway for me it was a reason. - -Q. Well was this procedure actually stopped everywhere in the end? - -A. No. When Hadamar was closed I immediately assumed that some other -institution would continue this task or that the procedure would be -followed up in some other way. That is also what Mr. von Hegener said -when he was there. - -Q. You said that these Eastern workers were collected by the same busses -as before? - -A. Yes. The busses were the same. They were big black busses, and we -knew the drivers because they came frequently. - -Q. To whom did the busses belong? To the Gauleiter’s office? - -A. These busses were owned by the transport company. The Sick Transport -Company in Berlin. Some of the personnel remained in Hadamar. - -Q. Was there no medical personnel? - -A. No. There was no medical personnel. - -Q. You said something about the excesses with reference to the program. - -A. One must differentiate between how things were until the action was -stopped in 1941, and how it was later on. - -Q. What excesses do you know of before the action was stopped in 1941? - -A. You mean individually? - -Q. Yes, in your institution. - -A. There were none at all in our institution. The people were -transported away. - -Q. You acted according to directives? - -A. Yes. I personally was not in charge of this action. My chief was in -charge. But as far as I know no excesses were committed by the nursing -personnel. Of course, some of the obstinate patients refused to enter -the busses. That is natural. - -Q. Were these all extreme cases which were sent for under this -Euthanasia Program? - -A. Of course, it depends where the limit is drawn. One can maintain the -view that a large part of the patients, perhaps, might have undergone a -certain change through modern shock treatment or some other modern -method of treatment. But with those cases there in which the mental -disease was in a very advanced stage, in my opinion, most of the -patients no longer had any chance to enjoy life. - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT[118] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you are charged with participation in the -Euthanasia Program. I shall show you the decree of 1 December [1 -September] 1939. (_NO-630, Pros. Ex. 330._) Please describe how this -decree came about. - -DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: After the end of the Polish campaign in about -October [sic], the Fuehrer was at Obersalzberg. I was called to him for -some reason which I can no longer remember and he told me that because -of a document which he had received from Reichsleiter Bouhler, he wanted -to bring about a definite solution in the euthanasia question. He gave -me general directives on how he imagined it, and the fundamentals were -that insane persons who were in such a condition that they could no -longer take any conscious part in life were to be given relief through -death. General instructions followed about petitions which he himself -had received, and he told me to contact Bouhler himself about the -matter. I did so by telephone on the same day, and I then informed -Hitler about my conversation with Bouhler. Thereupon he drafted a -formulation of this decree, not in the form we have here, but in a -similar form, and certain changes were made. My request was that a -precaution be introduced because of the medical participation, and I -used an expression for this which was familiar to me from expert -opinions. It stated that euthanasia could be carried out on persons and -then comes the formulation “who are incurable with a probability -bordering on certainty.” Since this formulation was strange to him, “on -the most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness” was added. -Therefore, when this decree was signed about the end of October, the -text read as follows: “Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged -with the responsibility of extending the authority of certain doctors, -to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to -human judgment, are incurably sick, can, on the most careful diagnosis -of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.” - -Q. Did you talk to Bouhler? - -A. At first I only talked to Bouhler on the telephone and even after the -decree was signed I did not talk to him immediately but sent the signed -decree to him in Berlin. - -Q. And what was Hitler’s idea of euthanasia? What did he understand by -it? - -A. The decisive thing for him was also expressed here in the decree, -namely, that incurably sick persons—actually it should have read insane -persons—other persons were absolute exceptions—could be accorded a -mercy death. That is, therefore, a measure dictated by purely humane -considerations, and nothing else could be thought under any -circumstances, and nothing else was ever said to me. - -Q. You said that the Fuehrer gave you the assignment on the basis of a -telephone call from Bouhler? The call from Bouhler could not have been -the only reason. There must have been others. - -A. It was not a telephone call. There was some kind of a documentary -incident which was decisive. It may be that the Fuehrer already had -these documents or that Bouhler spoke to him again about them. I don’t -know exactly. But this was not the cause of the Euthanasia Program being -started. In his book, “Mein Kampf,” Hitler had already referred to it in -certain chapters, and the law for the “prevention of the birth of -children suffering from hereditary diseases” is a proof that Hitler had -definitely concerned himself with such problems earlier. The law for the -“prevention of the birth of children suffering from hereditary diseases” -is actually a law which followed the events. It certainly arose because -children with congenital diseases existed. Proof that this is a problem -which affects the whole world lies in the fact that similar laws with -similar formulation and contents have been passed in other countries. - -Dr. Gerhardt Wagner, who was Dr. Conti’s predecessor, discussed these -questions at the Party rally in Nuernberg. I did not talk to Gerhardt -Wagner at that time and had nothing to do with these things. However, I -hear now that in 1935 Gerhardt Wagner had a film made presenting the -problem of the insane. Apparently the film was made in asylums with -insane persons. - -Q. Witness, did not the requests received by Bouhler and the Fuehrer -play a certain part? - -A. Requests to this effect were certainly constantly received by -Bouhler, and the Chancellery of the Fuehrer always received such things. -I only know that these requests were afterwards passed on to the Reich -Ministry of the Interior. I myself know of one request which was sent to -the Fuehrer himself through his adjutant’s office in the spring of 1939. -The father of a deformed child approached the Fuehrer and asked that -this child or this creature should be killed. Hitler turned this matter -over to me and told me to go to Leipzig immediately—it was in -Leipzig—to confirm the fact on the spot. It was a child who was born -blind, an idiot—at least it seemed to be an idiot—and it lacked one -leg and part of one arm. - -Q. Witness, you were speaking about the Leipzig affair, about this -deformed child. What did Hitler order you to do? - -A. He ordered me to talk to the physicians who were looking after the -child to find out whether the statements of the father were true. If -they were correct, then I was to inform the physicians in his name that -they could carry out euthanasia. - -The important thing was that the parents should not feel themselves -incriminated at some later date as a result of this euthanasia—that the -parents should not have the impression that they themselves were -responsible for the death of this child. I was further ordered to state -that if these physicians should become involved in some legal -proceedings because of this measure, these proceedings would be quashed -by order of Hitler. Martin Bormann was ordered at the time to inform -Guertner, the Minister of Justice, accordingly about this case. - -Q. What did the doctors who were involved say? - -A. The doctors were of the opinion that there was no justification for -keeping such a child alive. It was pointed out that in maternity wards -under certain circumstances it is quite natural for the doctors -themselves to perform euthanasia in such a case without anything further -being said about it. No precise instructions were given in that respect. - -Q. Was this problem of deformities dealt with anywhere else? - -A. The problem of deformities was probably discussed before this Leipzig -case. However, in the course of the summer it was worked on in a more -concrete form, first of all by the Ministry of the Interior. In this -case, Dr. Linden participated as a special consultant, probably as -representative of Dr. Conti—who became Reich Minister for Health after -the death of his predecessor Wagner, and then afterwards State Secretary -in the Ministry of the Interior. - -Q. Who was Dr. Linden? - -A. Dr. Linden was Ministerialrat in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. -He was a doctor and was the competent official who was later in charge -of this office for the mental institutions, perhaps he already was at -the time, I don’t know exactly. Later on, during the treatment of the -euthanasia question he was appointed exponent of all these matters. - -Q. What was the procedure at the time? Was Hitler informed about all -these matters? - -A. In August 1944 he ordered me to participate in a conference which -took place between Dr. Linden, Mr. Bouhler, and some other people. The -question of the registration of these deformities was discussed, and -also how to set about this registration. Dr. Linden, on behalf of the -Ministry of the Interior, submitted pertinent documents, questionnaires, -etc., which were then discussed once more in detail. It was the -preparatory work for the Reich Committee for the Registration of Serious -Hereditary and Constitutional Diseases, which was subsequently -established. - - * * * * * - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: Now, Witness, this is the first time that I have ever heard -mentioned in connection with the Euthanasia Program that anybody’s -consent had to be obtained, and I take it that it is a rather -fundamental matter. Are you ready to swear to this Tribunal that the -Reich committee never performed euthanasia on children without obtaining -the consent of the parents of the child? - -DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: I said yesterday that the approval of the parents -was necessary for the euthanasia of children, and I am of the opinion -that such approval was actually given. - -Q. Was the approval written approval or verbal approval? - -A. That I don’t know. I cannot say. - -Q. Have you ever seen any written approval? - -A. I believe that during the first period when this authorization was -submitted for signature to Bouhler and to me, all the other papers were -together with it, such as approvals, etc. It may be that during the -later period we were only concerned with the authorization papers and -that the other papers were left with the Reich committee. However, I did -see such letters of approval but I don’t believe that they were in -writing in every case. I think they were partly given orally through the -local physician or some other agency which dealt with the case. - -Q. Well, Witness, let’s look at this letter again. I find some -difficulty in reconciling your testimony about the necessity of consent -by the relatives of the child with what’s written here in this letter. -For example, the third line reads: “It seems that the relatives of Anna -Gasse tried to obtain her release by every possible means.” If, Witness, -it was necessary to obtain consent, why was there any question about -releasing Anna Gasse? - -A. I cannot say that either. According to my opinion, the child could -not be kept in an institution if the parents wanted it at home. - -Q. And the last sentence which reads, “If from a medical point of view -such release is warranted, one could perhaps take into consideration -whether one should not perhaps comply with such request in the interest -of the good reputation of the institution.” Don’t you find that language -just a bit restrained, Witness? - -A. Yes. I think it is very restrained. - ------ - -[93] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 247, 301, Nuremberg, -1947. - -[94] Defendant in case before International Military Tribunal. See Trial -of the Major War Criminals, Vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[95] Objection to admission in evidence sustained. - -[96] Ibid. - -[97] Objection to admission in evidence sustained. - -[98] Defendant (in absentia) before International Military Tribunal. See -Trial of the Major War Criminals, vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[99] Code name for the killing of non-German nationals and Jews who were -inmates of the concentration camps. - -[100] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. XX, pp. 490-1, Nuremberg, -1948. - -[101] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 247, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[102] United States _vs._ Alfons Klein, et al. See Law Reports of Trials -of War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 46-54, London, 1947. - -[103] Ibid. - -[104] Not introduced in evidence. - -[105] Not introduced in evidence. - -[106] United States _vs._ Alfons Klein, et al. See Law Reports of Trials -of War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 46-54, London, 1947. - -[107] Ibid. - -[108] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18 July 1947, -pp. 11220-11244. - -[109] Defendant before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the -Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 298-301, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[110] Literally: Nonprofit Sick Transport Company. - -[111] German or of similar blood (of German blood), Jew, Jewish mixed -breed Grades I or II, Negro (mixed breed). - -[112] Defendant in case of United States _vs._ Josef Altsetoetter, et -al. See Vol. III. - -[113] Enclosures were not available. - -[114] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16, 17 -Jan. 1947, pp. 1866-1946. - -[115] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 7, 8, -9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 May 1947, pp. 7413-7772. - -[116] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 250, 252-253, -Nuremberg, 1947. - -[117] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 Jan -1947, pp. 1816-1863. - -[118] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3, 4, -5, 6, 7 Feb 1947, pp. 2301-2661. - - - - - E. Selections From Photographic Evidence - of the Prosecution - - - - -[Illustration: INMATES OF THE DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP - IN DIFFERENT STAGES OF SIMULATED ALTITUDE IN THE - LOW PRESSURE CHAMBER - DOCUMENT NO-610, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 41] - -[Illustration: DOCUMENT NO-610, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 41] - -[Illustration: DOCUMENT NO-610, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 41] - -POST-MORTEM DISSECTION OF HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTAL -SUBJECTS SHOWING AIR BUBBLES IN BLOOD VESSELS -IN SUBARACHNOID SPACE OF BRAIN AND UNDER PLEURA -OF ANTERIOR CHEST WALL - -[Illustration: DOCUMENT NO-1080 A, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 219 A] - -EXPOSURES OF THE WITNESS MARIA KUSMIERCZUK WHO -UNDERWENT SULFANILAMIDE AND BONE EXPERIMENTS -WHILE AN INMATE OF THE RAVENSBRUECK CONCENTRATION -CAMP - -[Illustration: EXPOSURES OF THE WITNESS MARIA KUSMIERCZUK WHO UNDERWENT -SULFANILAMIDE AND BONE EXPERIMENTS WHILE AN INMATE OF THE RAVENSBRUECK -CONCENTRATION CAMP—Continued] - -DOCUMENT NO-1080 E -PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 219 E - -DOCUMENT NO-1080 F -PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 219 F - -[Illustration: EXPOSURES OF THE WITNESS JADWIGA DZIDO WHO UNDERWENT -SULFANILAMIDE AND BONE EXPERIMENTS WHILE AN INMATE OF THE RAVENSBRUECK -CONCENTRATION CAMP] - -DOCUMENT NO-1082 A -PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 214 A - -DOCUMENT NO-1082 C -PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 214 C - -[Illustration: PHOSPHORUS BURNS ARTIFICIALLY INFLICTED ON - INMATES OF THE BUCHENWALD CONCENTRATION CAMP - DOCUMENT NO-579, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 288] - -[Illustration: TANK CONTAINING FORMALDEHYDE FOR THE - PRESERVATION OF CORPSES - DOCUMENT NO-807, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 185] - -[Illustration: CORPSES ASSEMBLED IN TANKS PRIOR TO DISSECTION - DOCUMENT NO-807, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 185] - -[Illustration: CORPSES ASSEMBLED IN TANKS PRIOR TO DISSECTION—Continued - DOCUMENT NO-807, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 185] - -[Illustration: CORPSE SHOWING INCISIONS IN PREPARATION FOR DISSECTION - DOCUMENT NO-807, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 185] - - - - - VIII. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ON - IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE CASE - - - A. Applicability of Control Council Law No. 10 to - Offenses Against Germans During the War - - a. Introduction - -Under count III of the indictment, “Crimes against Humanity”, the -prosecution alleged that the defendants had engaged in medical -experiments “_upon German civilians_ and nationals of other countries” -and that the defendants had participated in executing “the so-called -‘euthanasia program’ of the German Reich, in the course of which the -defendants herein murdered hundreds of thousands of human beings, -_including German civilians_, as well as civilians of other nations”. -[Emphasis added.] Insofar as these offenses involved German nationals, -the defense argued that international law was not applicable. The -defense argued that under, the Charter annexed to the London Agreement, -crimes against humanity within the meaning of the Charter do not exist -unless offenses are committed “in the execution of, or in connection -with, any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal”. Although the -analogous provision of Control Council Law No. 10 does not include the -words of limitation “in the execution of, or in connection with any -crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal”, the defense argued that -Control Council Law No. 10 was only “an implementation law” of the -London Agreement and Charter, and hence could not increase the scope of -the offenses defined by the London Charter. Pointing to the section of -the judgment of the International Military Tribunal entitled “The law -relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity”,[119] the defense -noted that the IMT stated: “to constitute crimes against humanity, the -acts relied on before the outbreak of war must have been in execution -of, or in connection with, any crime within the jurisdiction of the -Tribunal”,[120] that is, crimes against peace or war crimes. Although -the indictment in the Medical Case did not allege that crimes were -committed against German nationals before the outbreak of the war on 1 -September 1939, the defense further argued that any offenses against -German nationals committed after 1939 had not been shown to be “in -execution of, or in connection with” crimes against peace and war crimes -and hence were not cognizable as crimes within the jurisdiction of the -Tribunal. - -Extracts from the closing statement of the prosecution appear below on -pages 910 to 915. A summation of the evidence on this question by the -defense has been taken from the closing brief for defendant Karl Brandt. -It appears below on pages 915 to 925. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION_[121] - - * * * * * - - _The Law of the Case_ - -Before proceeding to outline the prosecution’s case, it may perhaps be -desirable to anticipate several legal questions which will undoubtedly -be raised with respect to war crimes and crimes against humanity, as -defined in Article II of Control Council Law No. 10. Law No. 10 is, of -course, the law of this case and its terms are conclusive upon every -party to this proceeding. This Tribunal is, we respectfully submit, -bound by the definitions in Law No. 10, just as the International -Military Tribunal was bound by the definitions in the London Charter. It -was stated in the IMT judgment that:[122] - - “The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is defined in the Agreement - and Charter, and the crimes coming within the jurisdiction of - the Tribunal, for which there shall be individual - responsibility, are set out in Article 6. The law of the Charter - is decisive and binding upon the Tribunal * * *.” - - * * * * * - -In outlining briefly the prosecution’s conception of some of the legal -principles underlying war crimes and crimes against humanity, I shall, -with the Tribunal’s permission, adopt some of the language from the -opening statement of the prosecution in the case against Friedrich -Flick, et al., now pending before Tribunal IV. [See Vol. VI.] General -Taylor there said— - - * * * * * - - “Law No. 10 is * * * a legislative enactment by the Control - Council and is therefore part of the law of and within Germany. - One of the infirmities of dictatorship is that, when it suffers - irretrievable and final military disaster, it usually crumbles - into nothing and leaves the victims of its tyranny leaderless - amidst political chaos. The Third Reich had ruthlessly hunted - down every man and woman in Germany who sought to express - political ideas or develop political leadership outside of the - bestial ideology of nazism. When the Third Reich collapsed, - Germany tumbled into a political vacuum. The declaration by the - Allied Powers of 5 June 1945 announced the ‘assumption of - supreme authority’ in Germany ‘for the maintenance of order’ and - ‘for the administration of the country’, and recited that— - - ‘There is no central government or authority in Germany - capable of accepting responsibility for the maintenance - of order, the administration of the country, and - compliance with the requirements of the victorious - powers.’ - - “Following this declaration, the Control Council was constituted - as the repository of centralized authority in Germany. Law No. - 10 is an enactment of that body and is the law of Germany, - although its substantive provisions derive from and embody the - law of nations. The Nuernberg Military Tribunals are established - under the authority of Law No. 10,[123] and they render judgment - not only under international law as declared in Law No. 10, but - under the law of Germany as enacted in Law No. 10. The - Tribunals, in short, enforce both international law and German - law, and in interpreting and applying Law No. 10, they must view - Law No. 10 not only as a declaration of international law, but - as an enactment of the occupying powers for the governance of - and administration of justice in Germany. The enactment of Law - No. 10 was an exercise of legislative power by the four - countries to which the Third Reich surrendered, and, as was held - by the International Military Tribunal:[124] - - ‘* * * the undoubted right of these countries to legislate for - the occupied territories has been recognized by the civilized - world.’” - -War crimes are defined in Law No. 10 as atrocities or offenses in -violation of the laws or customs of war. This definition is based -primarily upon the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of -1929, which declare the law of nations at those times with respect to -land warfare, the treatment of prisoners of war, the rights and duties -of a belligerent power when occupying territory of a hostile state, and -other matters. The laws and customs of war apply between belligerents, -but not domestically or among allies. Crimes by German nationals against -other German nationals are not war crimes, nor are acts by German -nationals against Hungarians or Romanians. The war crimes charged in -this indictment all occurred after 1 September 1939, and it is therefore -unnecessary to consider the somewhat narrow limitation of the scope of -war crimes by the International Military Tribunal to acts committed -after the outbreak of war. One might argue that the occupations of -Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938, and of Bohemia and Moravia in March -1939, were sufficiently similar to a state of belligerency to bring the -laws of war into effect, but such questions are academic for purposes of -this case. - - * * * * * - -In connection with the charge of crimes against humanity, it is also -anticipated that an argument will be made by the defense to the effect -that crimes committed by German nationals against other German nationals -cannot constitute crimes against humanity as defined by Article II of -Control Council Law No. 10 and hence are not within the jurisdiction of -this Tribunal. The evidence of the prosecution has proved that in -substantially all of the experiments prisoners of war or civilians from -German-occupied territories were used as subjects. This proof stands -uncontradicted save by general statements of the defendants that they -were told by Himmler or some unidentified person that the experimental -subjects were all German criminals or that the subjects all spoke fluent -German. Thus, for the most part, the acts here in issue constitute war -crimes and hence, at the same time, crimes against humanity. Certainly -there has been no proof whatever that an order was ever issued -restricting the experimental subjects to German criminals as -distinguished from non-German nationals. If, in this or that minor -instance, the proof has not disclosed the precise nationality of the -unfortunate victims or has even shown them to be Germans, we may rest -assured that it was merely a chance occurrence. - -Be that as it may, the prosecution does not wish to ignore a challenge -to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal even though it is of minor -importance to this case. One thing should be made clear at the outset: -We are not here concerned with any question as to jurisdiction over -crimes committed before 1 September 1939, whether against German -nationals or otherwise. That subject has been mooted and is in issue in -another case now on trial, but the crimes in this case all occurred -after the war began. - -Moreover, we are not concerned with the question whether crimes against -humanity must have been committed “in execution of or in connection with -any crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.” The International -Military Tribunal construed its Charter as requiring that crimes against -humanity be committed in execution of, or in connection with, the crime -of aggressive war. Whatever the merit of that holding, the language of -the Charter of the International Military Tribunal which led to it is -not included in the definition of crimes against humanity in Control -Council Law No. 10. There can be no doubt that crimes against humanity -as defined in Law No. 10 stand on an independent footing and constitute -crimes _per se_. In any event, the crimes with which this case is -concerned were in fact all “committed in execution of, or in connection -with, the aggressive war.” This is true not only of the medical -experiments, but also of the Euthanasia Program, pursuant to which a -large number of non-German nationals were killed. The judgment of the -International Military Tribunal expressly so holds.[125] - -Thus, it is clear that the only issue which is raised in this case as to -crimes against humanity is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over -crimes committed by Germans against Germans. Does the definition of -crimes against humanity in Control Council Law No. 10 comprehend crimes -by Germans against Germans of the type with which this case is -concerned? The provisions of Law No. 10 are binding upon the Tribunal as -the law to be applied to the case.[126] The provisions of Section 1(c) -of Article II are clear and unambiguous. Crimes against humanity are -there defined as— - - “Atrocities and offenses, including but not limited to murder, - extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, - rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any _civilian - population_, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious - grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the - country where perpetrated.” [Emphasis supplied.] - -The words “any civilian population” cannot possibly be construed to -exclude German civilians. If Germans are deemed to be excluded, there is -little or nothing left to give purpose to the concept of crimes against -humanity. War crimes include all acts listed in the definition of crimes -against humanity when committed against prisoners of war and the -civilian population of occupied territory. The only remaining -significant groups are Germans and nationals of the satellite countries, -such as Hungary or Romania. It is one of the very purposes of the -concept of crimes against humanity, not only as set forth in Law No. 10 -but also as long recognized by international law, to reach the -systematic commission of atrocities and offenses by a state against its -own people. The concluding phrase of the definition of crimes against -humanity, _which is in the alternative_, makes it quite clear that -crimes by Germans against Germans are within the jurisdiction of this -Tribunal. It reads “or persecutions on political, racial, or religious -grounds _whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country -where perpetrated_.” This reference to “domestic laws” can only mean -discriminatory and oppressive legislation directed against a state’s own -people, as for example, the Nuernberg Laws against German Jews. -[Emphasis supplied.] - -The matter is put quite beyond doubt by Article III of Law No. 10 which -authorizes each of the occupying powers to arrest persons suspected of -having committed crimes defined in Law No. 10, and to bring them to -trial “before an appropriate tribunal.” Paragraph 1(d) of Article III -further provides that— - - “Such Tribunal may, in the case of crimes committed by persons - of German citizenship or nationality against other persons of - German citizenship or nationality, or stateless persons, be a - German court, if authorized by the occupying authorities.” - -This constitutes an explicit recognition that acts committed by Germans -against other Germans are punishable as crimes under Law No. 10 -according to the definitions contained therein in the discretion of the -occupying power. This has particular reference to crimes against -humanity, since the application of crimes against peace and war crimes, -while possible, is almost entirely theoretical. If the occupying power -fails to authorize German courts to try crimes committed by Germans -against other Germans (and in the American zone of occupation no such -authorization has been given), then these cases are tried only before -non-German tribunals, such as these Military Tribunals. - -What would be the effect of a holding that crimes by Germans against -Germans can under no circumstances be within the jurisdiction of the -Tribunal? Is this Tribunal to ignore the proof that tens of thousands of -Germans were exterminated pursuant to a secret decree, because a group -of criminals in control of a police state thought them “useless eaters” -and an unnecessary burden, or that German prisoners were murdered and -mistreated by thousands in concentration camps, in part by medical -experimentation? Military Tribunal II in the Milch case held that crimes -against nationals of Hungary and Romania were crimes against humanity. -There is certainly no reason in saying that there is jurisdiction over -crimes by Germans against Hungarians but not against Germans. - -The judgment of the International Military Tribunal shows a clear -recognition of its jurisdiction over crimes by Germans against Germans. -After reviewing a large number of inhumane acts in connection with war -crimes and crimes against humanity, the Tribunal concluded by saying -that— - - “* * * from the beginning of the war in 1939 war crimes were - committed on a vast scale, which were also crimes against - humanity; and insofar as the inhumane acts charged in the - indictment, and committed after the beginning of the war, did - not constitute war crimes, they were all committed in execution - of, or in connection with the aggressive war, and therefore - constituted crimes against humanity.”[127] - -Since war crimes are necessarily also crimes against humanity, the -broader definition of the latter can only refer to crimes not covered by -the former, namely, crimes against Germans and nationals of countries -other than those occupied by Germany. Moreover, the prosecution in that -case maintained that the inhumane treatment of Jews and political -opponents _in Germany_ before the war constituted crimes against -humanity. The Tribunal said in this connection— - - “With regard to crimes against humanity there is no doubt - whatever that political opponents were murdered in Germany - before the war, and that many of them were kept in concentration - camps in circumstances of great horror and cruelty. The policy - of terror was certainly carried out on a vast scale, and in many - cases was organized and systematic. The policy of persecution, - repression, and murder of civilians in Germany before the war of - 1939, who were likely to be hostile to the government, was most - ruthlessly carried out. The persecution of Jews during the same - period is established beyond all doubt.”[128] - -The Tribunal was there speaking exclusively of crimes by Germans against -Germans. It held that such acts were not crimes against humanity, as -defined by the Charter, not because they were crimes against Germans, -but because they were not committed in execution of, or in connection -with, aggressive war. Indeed, the Tribunal went on to hold that the very -same acts committed after the war began were crimes against humanity. No -distinction was drawn between the murder of German Jews and Polish or -Russian Jews. And, moreover, no distinction was drawn between criminal -medical experimentation on German and non-German concentration camp -inmates or the murder of German and non-German civilians under the -Euthanasia Program. The Tribunal held them all to be war crimes and/or -crimes against humanity. - - c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT - KARL BRANDT_ - - * * * * * - - _The Punishable Crime Against Humanity_ - -The criminality of the crime against humanity is based on Law No. 10 of -the Control Council for Germany. Article II of this law states— - - “1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime: - - * * * * * - - _c._ Crime against humanity * * *.” - -The concept of the crime against humanity has not been established and -it is questionable whether crimes against humanity according to Law No. -10 also refer to such acts as have been committed on German nationals by -German nationals. The decision of this question is of particular -significance since the medical experiments with which the defendants are -charged and the mercy killings executed were, in the first place, -carried out on German nationals. - -The question here is not to establish whether such acts are against -humanity but whether they are crimes against humanity punishable -according to Law No. 10 which were committed knowingly and willfully. If -measures taken against German nationals do not come under the law, the -evidence of the prosecution to be examined is restricted mainly to those -cases in which certain foreigners were affected, and in addition, -evidence must be produced proving that the defendant was aware of the -fact that foreigners too had actually been involved by these measures. - -It is to be understood from Law No. 10 that it is merely an -_implementation law_ to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 and the -statute belonging to it. This has been expressly stressed in the -introduction, and beyond that the London Statute and the Moscow -Declaration of 30 October 1943 have been declared inseparable components -of the law according to Article I. - -The legally pre-eminent London Statute therefore is decisive for the -interpretation of the substantive law. Article 6(c) of this statute -provides that crimes against humanity can be considered punishable only -if they were committed “in execution of or in connection with any crime -within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal * * *”. This jurisdiction, -however, extends only to crimes against peace and to war crimes. The -punishable crime against humanity, therefore, is restricted to the -latter. The prosecution, however, has only recently championed a -different opinion. In Case 5 before Tribunal IV, the case against Flick -and others,[129] the prosecution declared in its opening statement on 19 -April 1947 that the clause: “in connection with a crime within the -jurisdiction of the tribunal” has a different meaning from what it -expresses. The clause is to signify that the Tribunal is not to deal -with individual crimes but only with such crimes as have been committed -on _a large scale_ and are therefore within the jurisdiction of the -trial. - -This meaning of the clause was not apparent to the International -Military Tribunal, the prosecutors of the signatory powers at that time, -nor to those who later commented on the verdict, and I do not believe -that one can agree with the newly established interpretation of the -prosecution. The decision of the _International Military Tribunal_ is -authoritative for the interpretation since it was pronounced by the -judges of the signatory powers who were expressly appointed for -application of the new law. _The high authority_ of the International -Military Tribunal is emphasized by Ordinance 7, Article X, according to -which its actual findings are binding for the later courts. - -This International Military Tribunal, however, has ruled that the -punishable crime against humanity is a _dependent, subsidiary crime_ and -that it can only be considered a crime if it has been committed in -connection with a war crime or a crime against peace. The verdict of the -International Military Tribunal[130] in rejecting the criminality of -crimes against humanity committed prior to the war states the following: - - “The Tribunal is of the opinion that revolting and horrible as - many of these crimes were, it has not been satisfactorily proved - that they were done in execution of, or in connection with, any - such crime.” - -The _prosecution before the International Military Tribunal_ has on its -part endeavored to prove such a connection; this would not have been -necessary if it had not considered this connection a part of the -specification of the crime against humanity. Professor Donnedieu de -Vabres, the French judge of the International Military Tribunal, -expressed his attitude to this limitation of the punishable crime -against humanity after the pronouncement of the verdict in a lecture -quoted by the prosecution in the Flick case;[131] his opinion can be -considered important. The French judge deplores the limitation of the -crime against humanity, but he confirms it. This limitation is no -figment of the imagination but the _necessary result_ of the prevailing -international law; it has its origin in the concept of _sovereignty_. - -It is the purport of the _Moscow Declaration_ and the London Statute, -both of which have been incorporated into Law No. 10, to deal only with -the crimes that affect the relations between nations. These relations -are to be safeguarded and for that reason crimes are to be punished -which are significant according to international law and which are -connected with war crimes and crimes against peace. The -“_international_” crimes are to be punished. - -This significance of the international crime to be understood from the -point of view of international law is especially clearly expounded in a -book written by Professor Trainin who was the official advisor on -judicial matters for the _Soviet Union_ in the proceedings in Case I, -the International Military Tribunal. This is a book entitled “The -Criminal Responsibility of the Hitlerites” published by the Law -Institute, Academy of Science in the Soviet Union, through [edited by] -the academician Vishinsky. The book was written at the time the statute -originated. According to this, it is not the meaning and purpose of -“international criminal law” to impose punishment for crimes which have -no effect _beyond the borders of their own country_ and which do not -involve the _sphere of international law_. - -The fact that no thought was given to punishment of crimes committed -within the borders of Germany is evident from the _Moscow Declaration_ -of 30 October 1943. In this declaration crimes are mentioned exclusively -which have been committed in other countries to which the accused are to -be _returned_. - -If there could still be doubts with regard to the interpretation of the -subsidiary nature of the crime against humanity, these doubts are -eliminated by the _Berlin Addendum Minutes_ [Zusatzprotokoll] added to -the statute, dated 6 October 1945. In these minutes the subsidiary -nature of the crime against humanity is elucidated by means of a -_correction_, the apparent insignificance of which is the very thing -that serves to emphasize its importance. According to this, the four -Allied Main Powers, as the signatories of the statute, meet again only -for the purpose of transforming a _semicolon into a comma_ and it -appears in the minutes that this was done because the meaning and -intentions of the agreements and the statute require it. - -Article 6 (c) of the statute was originally worded as follows and even -at present is reproduced in many copies in the same form as far as -punctuation is concerned: - - “(c) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, - enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed - against any civilian population, before or during the war ‘;’ or - persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in - execution of or in connection with any crime within the - jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the - domestic law of the country where perpetrated.” - -The wording of the Berlin Addendum Minutes [Protocol] dated 6 October -1945 in this context reads as follows:[132] - - “Whereas an Agreement and Charter regarding the Prosecution of - War Criminals was signed in London on the 8th August 1945, in - the English, French, and Russian languages, - - “And whereas a discrepancy has been found to exist between the - originals of Article 6, paragraph (c), of the Charter in the - Russian language, on the one hand, and the originals in the - English and French languages, on the other, to wit, the - semicolon in Article 6, paragraph (c), of the Charter between - the words ‘war’ and ‘or’, as carried in the English and French - texts, is a comma in the Russian text, - - “And whereas it is desired to rectify this discrepancy: - - “NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, signatories of the said - Agreement on behalf of their respective Governments, duly - authorized thereto, have agreed that Article 6, paragraph (c), - of the Charter in the Russian text is correct, and that the - meaning and intention of the Agreement and Charter require that - the said semi-colon in the English text should be changed to a - comma, and that the French text should be amended to read as - follows: - - “(c) LES CRIMES CONTRE L’HUMANITE: c’est à dire l’assassinat, - l’extermination, la réduction en esclavage, la déportation, et - tout autre acte inhumain commis contre toutes populations - civiles, avant on pendant la guerre, ou bien les persécutions - pour des motifs politiques, raciaux, ou réligieux, lorsque ces - actes ou persécutions, qu’ils aient constitué ou non une - violation du droit interne du pays où ils ont été perpétrés ont - été commis à la suite de tout crime rentrant dans la compétence - du Tribunal, ou en liaison avec ce crime. - - “In witness whereof the Undersigned have signed the present - Protocol. - - “Done in quadruplicate in Berlin this 6th day of October 1945, - each in English, French, and Russian, and each text to have - equal authenticity. - - For the Government of the United States of America: - [Signature] ROBERT H. JACKSON - For the Provisional Government of the French Republic: - [Signature] FRANÇOIS DE MENTHON - For the Government of the United Kingdom of - Great Britain and Northern Ireland: - [Signature] HARTLEY SHAWCROSS - For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: - [Signature] R. RUDENKO” - -Obviously it was no printing error which simply would have been -corrected. This is rather a _carefully thought out limitation_ on the -part of the Signatory Powers which was _clarified_ unmistakably. Without -this limitation, a _precedent_ of decisive significance would have been -created for _international law_ for the possibility would have existed -to prosecute at any time alleged crimes against humanity in a different -country. According to this, the socialist states would have assailed the -social conditions in capitalistic countries as crimes against humanity, -and vice versa the capitalistic states could have replied to the -measures of the socialist countries with an _intervention_ as -experienced by the young Bolshevist Revolution in 1919. Precisely that -however was to be prevented by not recognizing an independent crime -against humanity for the protection of sovereign states. Professor -Donnedieu de Vabres has particularly mentioned this point of view in his -lecture _as a decisive point of view of the International Military -Tribunal_. - -The same restrictive view of this question is taken in the latest -_International Law of the United Nations Organization_ (UNO), Chapter I, -Article 2, paragraph 7 of the resolution of San Francisco, concerning -the establishment of UNO, dated 26 June 1945, reads that an -_interference_ in matters which are within the jurisdiction of the -country is _inadmissible_. Accordingly it is a fixed principle of -international law even today that proceedings within a state cannot -entail sanction; spoken in the words of the statute, there are no -independent crimes against humanity, which might be punished as -international crimes. - -The opinion of Hugo Grotius and his numerous adherents is rejected and -is no longer valid as international law today. _Interventions from -points of view of humanity are declined_, as their motive seems -suspicious to the states.[133] - -Decisive alone is the practice of the members of the _body of the -nations who have agreed on international law_ -(Voelkerrechtsgemeinschaft) and the existing agreements on international -law. - -These _legal realities_ must be contrasted with the extravagant opinion, -which believes that the protection of humanity can only be safeguarded -by a kind of international sovereignty limited by the sovereignty of the -individual states. This would be an aim which we would most sincerely -desire to attain, but practice shows that there are plenty of crimes -against humanity even today, but _no institution_ which has the power to -punish them. There will never be such an institution, except insofar as -it concerns the totally _vanquished after a total war_, to which in the -future every war must lead. - -Another point of view is quoted too which, in face of the decision of -the IMT and while avoiding a precedent, will make crimes against -humanity independent, at least insofar as application in Germany is -concerned, with the effect that crimes of Germans against Germans could -be punished by the military tribunals of the occupying power. - -It is maintained that the _authority of the Control Commission_ for -Germany _with regard to national law_ gave them the power to extend the -scope of punishment for crimes against humanity, independent of the -statute. This is opposed by the elementary principle of international -law that the _legislative authority_ of an occupying power _only_ begins -_with the moment of occupation_ and therefore can have _no retrospective -force_. This principle is not in opposition to the theory that -international law acknowledged a so-called “_retrospectiveness_” for war -crimes in a wider sense, for this retrospectiveness only refers to the -“_international crimes_” which are effective outside of one’s own -country and have an immediate influence from the point of view of -international law. There it serves to carry through international penal -law, the realization of which would _otherwise be impossible_. Here the -so-called retrospectiveness means nothing else but that international -law takes precedence over national law. This international point of view -can have no value for national law. - -If a different rule were in operation, all persons who supported the -political opponent, i. e., the so-called “_patriots_” might be punished -after the occupation of a country, and Hitler’s Commissar Order -[Kommissar-Befehl] according to which all active Communists were to be -shot, would be sanctioned, because they were Communists and because of -that were declared enemies of mankind, i. e. “criminals against -humanity.” - -Such a _checking of the “morals”_ of the enemy seems inadmissible; the -checking of the conditions in one’s own country is a matter for the -people itself; the latter may, on account of its laws, or in a -revolution, prosecute its compatriots itself, on the grounds of their -behavior. The IMT kept just to this fundamental idea of the statute and -one cannot push this law aside arbitrarily by declaring on political -grounds that _in order to secure peace and democracy_ all actions -committed formerly in the country must be punished as crimes against -humanity. - -By such an interpretation of the authority in national law you would -place yourself in strong opposition to the _proclamation of General -Eisenhower_ on the occasion of the occupation of Germany; this was -incorporated in Law No. 1 of Military Government, and the following was -decreed under threat of death in case of violation: - - “Accusation may only be brought in, sentence only be passed and - punishment be inflicted, if a law which was in force at the time - when the act was committed expressly declares this action - punishable. Punishment of acts as a result of application of - analogy or according to the opinion of the ‘sound popular - feeling’ is prohibited.” - -Then attempts were made to support the unlimited legislative right of -the occupying power by other means, and they referred to a -“_debellatio_” or “_quasi-debellatio_” or to the fact that Germany had -_capitulated unconditionally_. - -Disregarding the fact that no _debellatio_ is in hand and that only the -Allies pronounce themselves occupying powers, and, without mentioning -that Grossadmiral Doenitz[134] _had no valid authority_ to renounce the -protective international law for the German people, the valid law is -clearly laid down in the _Hague Convention_. The regulations contained -there in _Chapter III_ have been created just for a capitulation -situation and regulate the _right of occupation_. - -Unconditional capitulation does not mean renunciation of the protection -of international law nor submission to arbitrariness and illegality; but -_capitulation within the framework of the war conventions_, i. e., -within the framework of the Hague Convention. - -These provisions of the Hague Convention are not only valid for the time -of actual fighting, but must be valid also for the _time after cessation -of the actual hostilities_ until the peace treaty. The fundamental idea -of the Hague Convention is the protection of the population against the -arbitrariness of the enemy, and it cannot be permitted that after -cessation of hostilities _stricter rules_ may be applied to the -inhabitants of an occupied territory _than during the time of actual -fighting_. In the time when the occupying power hardly seems endangered -any more the arbitrariness of a belated punishment of political -opponents for actions, which they did in their own country according to -the laws of their own country, must not rule. - -Law No. 10 cannot disregard this international law, which was -acknowledged by the International Military Tribunal after it had been -issued and this Tribunal will have to check the _authority of the -Control Commission_ and watch that no measures are taken of which the -participating peoples of the Signatory States are not informed -officially, as the decisive laws were submitted to _no special -ratification_. - -Thus we come to the conclusion that the crime against humanity _of Law -No. 10_ must be the _same as that of the statute_. Bound to a war crime -it cannot be applied to actions of Germans against Germans. Connected -with a _crime against peace_ you can imagine such crimes against -Germans, but these crimes must be in the execution of or in connection -with a crime against peace. So at least there must be a _close -connection_ with a _certain crime_. - -Certainly it cannot be sufficient, therefore, that an act against a -German is committed during a war and objectively furthered the war, but -the perpetrator _must have known_ that his action was in _connection_ -with a certain crime against peace, even if he himself were not guilty -of it. Without this limit, all hard measures, which are taken during a -war even against one’s own population, as for example against -conscientious objectors and saboteurs, ought to be punished as crimes -against humanity in connection with a crime against peace, if this war -is declared to be an aggressive one by the enemy, after it has been -lost. - -Therefore _certain_ things must be in hand which make the crime -_obvious_ and prove the connection. If you were to decide otherwise the -well-formulated specifications of the statute would be superfluous, and -likewise the protection of the population by the Hague Convention would -be set aside in an inadmissible way, as the execution of every ordered -war measure can be declared “inhuman”. This interpretation of the -subsidiary nature of the crime against humanity is confirmed, if one -ascertains what _the real crime against humanity_ itself is _primarily_ -supposed to be. - -In the Flick[135] case the prosecution tried to make a definition from -Article 6 (c) of the statute. They referred to the clause “_in -connection with a_ crime within the jurisdiction of the court”, and -interpreted this as follows: That crimes of especially _large -proportions_ must be in question, since the International Military -Tribunal should only deal with such. Such an interpretation cannot be -maintained, as the International Military Tribunal is competent for _the -most insignificant war crime too_, and for every crime against peace, -regardless of its dimensions. - -It must be admitted that the statute _does not contain a definition at -all_ and that characteristics of a crime against humanity are _not -stipulated_. If you want to find such a specification for an independent -crime against humanity, which is detached from crimes against peace and -war crimes, you can only fall back on the notorious “_sound feeling_” -and you will get lost in the void, because its limits are not fixed, but -shift according to the _political wish_. - -Here you can point to the fact that Germany’s unrestrained _U-boat war_ -during the First World War was then pilloried as a _crime against -humanity_ and caused America to enter the war. During World War II, -however, the same manner of warfare was used by the USA against Japan; -this was cleared up before the International Military Tribunal by an -affidavit of Admiral Nimitz.[136] - -The answer to the question as to what the crime against humanity itself -consists of can only be given from the _examples of the statute_ and can -be supported by the _interpretation_ which the International Military -Tribunal has given. According to this the _crime against humanity_ is -the _aggravation_ of a war crime or a crime against peace. It differs -from these crimes by its _dimension_, its _system_, and the _manner_ of -execution. This can be deduced from the wording of the text of the -statute where as typical examples are quoted: “extirpation, enslavement, -deportation”. - -In cases of crimes against humanity, according to this, actions must be -in question which are punishable in themselves already, but in addition -to this go further and are extended, so that they are _“qualified” -crimes_. The dimension of the crimes is confirmed by the _wording of the -Russian text_, which does not mention “homicide” but “homicides” in the -plural, and not “persecution” but “persecutions” in the plural. The -Russian text of Law No. 10 is worded similarly. - -This opinion is confirmed in two places by the decision of the -International Military Tribunal. The question of crimes against humanity -is specially dealt with there in the section “War Crimes and Crimes -against Humanity”,[137] and in the section “The Law Relating to War -Crimes and Crimes against Humanity”.[138] Here the actions which are -pronounced as _crimes against humanity_ are characterized as perpetrated -“_on a large scale_” and as “methodically” and “systematically” -executed. They are called “terror politics” and are called “terrible and -brutal” as well as “utterly ruthless”, “deterrent and horrible”. Not -isolated murder nor isolated imprisonment nor the isolated boycotting of -a Jew is meant, but only a _general measure_ which violates “the most -elementary laws of humanity”. - -These are not actions which an _individual_ can execute _alone_; he -needs _organized_ help for that. _Therefore_ the _perpetrator can only -be a commander_; he who obeys is his tool and can only become a -punishable assistant. Here the individual does _not_ act _from his own_ -criminal _motive_, but he acts according to order and higher -instruction. Therefore the _motive_ of the action is basically -_political_. Above all, the Hague Convention had in mind common _crimes -of individuals_, which are rejected by the states themselves and which -they themselves prosecute by penal law in the interest of humanity. For -this purpose the states had issued corresponding national laws. - -In the development of this idea, it is from now on a question of -preventing political measures, which are _methodically carried through -by the state_, by international penal law, i. e., measures which are -rejected by the International Military Tribunal as “barbaric methods” -and as “methods for breaking every resistance.” - -The rejection of such methods as crimes against humanity was expressed -for the first time in _the Hague Convention [Annex] in Article 22_, -according to which the belligerent nations have no unlimited right in -the choice of means for doing damage to the enemy. Now the perpetrators -of these actions are to be _punishable_. - -Which means are still permitted in battle, however, and which methods -are still admissible, can only be gathered from the practice of the -states. If you look for an independent _measuring rod for humanity_, you -must establish that things seem still admissible which force us to stop -a moment. The destruction of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of an -unprotected city by bomb carpets and the use of the atomic bomb makes a -discussion rather senseless, as humanity did not object to these -horrors, which in future will even be surpassed. - -_This measuring rod must_ not be forgotten if you proceed to the -judgment of the crimes against humanity of which people are accused -here. If such monstrosities are deemed admissible on one side, while -similar actions on the part of the enemy are condemned, the _judgment_ -of humanity can only depend on the approval or disapproval of the -_purpose and aim_, and thereby loses the name of justice. - -The firm ground on which the punishable crime against humanity rests, -can only be the _proved war crime_ or a _definite crime against peace_. - ------ - -[119] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 253-255, Nuremberg, -1947. - -[120] Ibid., p. 254. - -[121] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July -1947, pp. 10718-10796. - -[122] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 218, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[123] Control Council Law No. 10, Article III, par. 1(d) and 2, Military -Government Ordinance No. 7, Article II. - -[124] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 218, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[125] Ibid., pp. 231, 247, 252, 254, 301. - -[126] Ibid., pp. 174, 253. - -[127] Ibid., pp. 254, 255. - -[128] Ibid. - -[129] United States _vs._ Friedrich Flick, et al. See Vol. VI. - -[130] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 254, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[131] Lecture of Professor Donnedieu de Vabres, Association des Etudes -Internationales “Le Procès de Nuremberg.” Library of the International -Military Tribunal XII 259. - -[132] Translation of Protocol in this brief differed from original -English copy. Authentic English version has been inserted here. - -[133] Compare literature of the Soviet Union. (_Karl Brandt 188_ [not -introduced in evidence].) - -1. History of the all-Soviet Communist Party (Bolshevists). Under the -editorial management of the commission of the Central Committee of the -Communist Party 1938 (Bolshevists) approved by the Central Committee of -the Communist Party OGIS State Publishing Office for Political -Literature 1945, chapter 8: - - “The party of the Bolshevists during foreign military - intervention and the Civil War 1918-1920, page 215. - -2. “Intervention,” play in 4 acts by Salawin [Slavin] 1940, Moskau -[Moscow]-Leningrad (_Karl Brandt 127_ [not introduced in evidence]). - -[134] Defendant before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the -Major War Criminals, Vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[135] United States _vs._ Friedrich Flick, et al. See Vol. VI. - -[136] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. XVII, pp. 377-381, -Nuremberg, 1948. - -[137] Ibid., vol. I, pp. 226-228. - -[138] Ibid., vol. I, pp. 253-255. - - - B. Responsibility of Superiors for Acts of Subordinates - - a. Introduction - -Defendants who were in high positions in the German medical service -rejected responsibility for the alleged criminal conduct of their -subordinates. The prosecution argued that it “would be an unforgivable -miscarriage of justice to punish the doctors who worked on the victims -in the concentration camps while their superiors, the leaders, -instigators, and organizers go free.” The prosecution, for example, -argued that Karl Brandt held supreme authority over all medical services -in Germany, both military and civilian; that Handloser was the Chief of -the Medical Services in the Wehrmacht; that Rostock was Karl Brandt’s -deputy charged with the task of “centrally coordinating and directing -the problems and activities of the entire medical and health service” in -the field of science and research; that Schroeder was the Chief of the -Medical Service of the Luftwaffe; that Genzken was the Chief of the -Medical Service of the Waffen SS; that Blome was the Deputy Reich Health -Leader; and that these men were clearly responsible for the acts of -their subordinates in their respective sectors. - -The prosecution’s summation of evidence on this question has been taken -from the closing statement which appears below on pages 926 to 936. -Extracts from the final pleas for the defendants Karl Brandt, Schroeder, -Rostock, and the closing briefs for Handloser, Genzken, and Blome appear -on pages 936 to 957. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE - PROSECUTION_[139] - - * * * * * - - _The Responsible Leaders of the Medical Services_ - -In view of the clear and overwhelming proof, it can only be concluded -that the practice of experimentation on concentration camp inmates -without their consent was an organized and systematic program. It is, -therefore, appropriate to consider whether we have in this dock the -leaders of the German medical services without whom these crimes would -not have been possible. It would be an unforgivable miscarriage of -justice to punish the doctors who worked on the victims in the -concentration camps while their superiors, the leaders, organizers, and -instigators go free. It has been established beyond controversy that -these things could not have happened without cover from the top. Who, -then, were these men on the top? Their survivors, with one exception, -are all in this dock. - -In the number one seat we have the defendant Karl Brandt. He held -supreme authority over all the medical services in Germany, both -military and civilian. He joined the Nazi Party in January 1932 and the -SS in 1934, in which he rose to the rank of Gruppenfuehrer [Major -General]. In the latter year, at the age of 30, he became the attending -physician to Adolf Hitler and retained this position until 1945. His -close personal relationship to the Fuehrer explains his rapid rise to -power. On the day Poland was invaded in 1939, Hitler ordered Brandt and -Philipp Bouhler, the Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, to carry -out the so-called Euthanasia Program. - -Aside from his personal influence and intimate connection with Hitler, -Brandt’s greatest power in the medical services came from his position -as General Commissioner and later Reich Commissioner of the Health and -Medical Services. As a result of the disastrous winter campaign in the -East in 1941, Hitler established for the first time a medical and health -official under his direct control by decree of 28 July 1942. This decree -made Brandt the supreme authority over all medical services in Germany. -It stated in part as follows: - - “I empower Professor Dr. Karl Brandt, subordinate only to me - personally and receiving his instructions directly from me, to - carry out special tasks and negotiations, to readjust the - requirements for doctors, hospitals, medical supplies, etc., - between the military and the civilian sectors of the Health and - Medical Services. - - My plenipotentiary for Health and Medical Services is to be kept - informed about the fundamental events in the Medical Services of - the Wehrmacht and in the Civilian Health Service. He is - authorized to intervene in a responsible manner.” (_NO-080, - Pros. Ex. 5._) - -By the same decree chiefs were also commissioned for the Medical -Services of the Wehrmacht and the Civilian Health Service. The defendant -Handloser became Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, while -Dr. Leonardo Conti, State Secretary for Health and the Reich Health -Leader, was made Chief of the Civilian Health Services. Brandt was the -superior of both Handloser and Conti, and through them had extensive -powers over the Army, Navy, Luftwaffe, Waffen SS, and Civilian Medical -Services. Brandt stood at the apex of power. He was subordinated to no -one save the Fuehrer. He was the man to act for the Fuehrer in medical -matters. The decree authorized Brandt “to intervene in a responsible -manner” and directed that he be kept informed of “fundamental events”. -Certainly nothing could be more fundamental than a policy of performing -medical experiments involving the torture and death of involuntary human -subjects. - -On 5 September 1943 Hitler issued a second decree empowering Brandt -“with centrally coordinating and directing the problems and activities -of the entire medical and health services * * *”. (_NO-081, Pros. Ex. -6._) The order expressly stated that Brandt’s authority covered the -field of medical science and research. Shortly following the issuance of -this decree, the defendant Rostock was appointed by Brandt as Chief of -the Office for Science and Research, with plenary powers in that field. - -Finally, on 25 August 1944, the Fuehrer elevated Brandt to Reich -Commissioner for the Health and Medical Services and stated that in this -capacity “his office ranks as highest Reich authority.” Brandt’s -position was thus equivalent to that of a Reich Minister. He was -authorized “to issue instructions to the offices and organizations of -the State, Party, and Wehrmacht, which are concerned with the problems -of the Medical and Health Services”. (_NO-082, Pros. Ex. 7._) It is -clear that this decree was issued to resolve a struggle for power -between Brandt and Conti. Certainly the decree does no more than give -Brandt a more august title and restate his powers, powers which he had -already received as early as July 1942. Brandt testified that it merely -“strengthened” his position. A service regulation issued by Keitel for -Handloser, as Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, at a time -when Brandt was still General Commissioner, provided that Handloser was -subject to the “general rules of the Fuehrer’s Commissioner General for -the Medical and Health Services” and that Brandt had to be informed of -the “basic events” in the field of the Medical Services of the -Wehrmacht. In a pretrial affidavit the defendant Handloser stated that -after he became Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht on 28 -July 1942 “Brandt was my immediate superior in medical affairs.” -(_NO-443, Pros. Ex. 10._) Schroeder stated that “Karl Brandt, Handloser, -and Rostock were informed of the medical research work conducted by the -Luftwaffe.” (_NO-449, Pros. Ex. 130._) In addition to his position as -General and Reich Commissioner of the Health and Medical Services, -Brandt was also a member of the Presidential Council of the Reich -Research Council, an organization which gave financial support for -criminal experiments. - -In the number two seat is the defendant Handloser who held supreme power -over the medical services of all branches of the Wehrmacht. Early in -1941 he was appointed Army Medical Inspector and Army Physician [Army -Medical Chief (Heeresarzt)]. He held these positions until September -1944 and as such had complete command over the entire Army Medical -Services which was by far the largest of the medical branches of the -Wehrmacht. In his capacity as Army Medical Inspector, Handloser had -subordinated to him the Consulting Physicians of the Army, the Military -Medical Academy, the Typhus and Virus Institutes of the OKH at Krakow -and Lemberg [Lvov], and the Medical School for Mountain Troops at St. -Johann. He attained the rank of Generaloberstabsarzt, the highest -military medical rank. - -On 28 July 1942, Handloser was elevated to the newly created position of -Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht. This was the same decree -which appointed Brandt General Commissioner, to whom Handloser, on the -military side, and Conti, on the civilian side, were subordinated. -Handloser was charged with the coordination of the Medical Services of -the Wehrmacht and all organizations and units subordinated or attached -to the Wehrmacht, including the Medical Services of the Waffen SS. Prior -to this decree there were four separate medical branches of the -Wehrmacht, the Army, Luftwaffe, Navy, and Waffen SS, each operating -independently of the other. Pursuant to this decree, Handloser was -appointed to coordinate and unify their operations and was directly -responsible to Keitel as Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht -(OKW). He had authority over the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Luftwaffe, -and Waffen SS Medical Services, and all organizations and services -employed within the framework of the Wehrmacht, and over “_all -scientific medical institutes, academies, and other medical institutions -of the services of the Wehrmacht and of the Waffen SS_.” [Emphasis -added.] (_NO-227, Pros. Ex. 11._) He was the adviser of the Chief of the -Supreme Command and of the Wehrmacht in all questions concerning the -medical services of the Wehrmacht and of its health guidance. In the -field of medical science, his duties were to carry out uniform measures -in the field of health guidance, _research and combating of epidemics_, -and all medical matters which required a uniform ruling among the -Wehrmacht, and further, _in the evaluation of medical experiences_. - -One of the principal means used by the defendant Handloser in -coordinating scientific research was the joint meeting of consulting -physicians of the four branches of the Wehrmacht. At the Second Meeting -East of Consulting Physicians in December 1942 at the Military Medical -Academy, Handloser himself pointed out quite clearly the task of the -Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht in unifying medical -scientific research. In addressing the full meeting he said: - - “The demands and extent of this total war, as well as the - relationship between needs and availability of personnel and - material, require measures, also in military and medical fields, - which will serve the unification and unified leadership. It is - not a question of ‘marching separately and battling together’, - but marching and battling must be done in unison from the - beginning in all fields. - - “As a result, with respect to the military sector, the Wehrmacht - Medical Service and with it the Chief of the Medical Services of - the Wehrmacht came into being. Not only in matters of personnel - and material—even as far as this is possible in view of special - fields and special tasks which must be considered—but also with - a view to medical scientific education and research, our path in - the Wehrmacht Medical Service must and will be a unified one. - Accordingly, the group of participants in this Second Work - Conference East, which I have now opened, is differently - composed from the First Work Conference in May of this year. - Then it was a conference of the army; today the three branches - of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS and Police, the Labor Service - and the Organization Todt are participating and unified. - - “You will surely permit that I greet you with a general welcome - and with the sincere wish that our common work may be blessed - with the hoped for joint success. - - “I would, however, like to extend a special greeting to the - Reich Chief of Health Services, Under Secretary Conti, who holds - the central leadership of medical services in the civilian - sector. I see in his presence not only an interest in our work - themes, but the expression of his connection with the Wehrmacht - Medical Service and his understanding of the special importance - of the Wehrmacht in the field as well as at home. I need not - emphasize that we are as one in the recognition of the necessity - to assure and ease the mind of the soldier, that he need not - worry about the physical well-being of the homeland as far as - this is within the realm of possibility in wartime.” (_NO-922, - Pros. Ex. 435._) - -Again, at the Fourth Meeting of Consulting Physicians in May 1944 the -defendant Karl Brandt stressed the importance of Handloser’s position, -saying— - - “Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser, you, a soldier and a physician - at the same time, are responsible for the use and the - performance of our medical officers. - - * * * * * - - “I believe, and this probably is the sole expectation of all - concerned, that this meeting which today starts in Hohenlychen - will be held for the benefit of our soldiers. The achievements - to date of your physicians, Herr Generaloberstabsarzt, confirm - this unequivocally, and their readiness to do their share makes - all of us proud and—I may also say—confident. - - * * * * * - - “It is good simply to call these things by their names and to - look at them as they are. This meeting is the visible expression - of it—it is, it shall be, and it must be so in every respect; - the consulting physicians are gathered around their medical - chief. When I look at these ranks, you Generaloberstabsarzt - Handloser, are to be envied; medical experts, with the best and - most highly trained special knowledge, are at your disposal for - care of the soldiers. In reciprocal action between yourself and - your medical officers, the problem of our medical knowledge and - capacity are kept alive.” (_NO-924, Pros. Ex. 437._) - -This was no accolade paid to a man without power and influence. If -Handloser is not responsible for the crimes committed by the medical -services of the Wehrmacht, and especially of the Army and Luftwaffe, -then no one is responsible. - -In the number three seat we have the defendant Rostock who, as Brandt’s -special deputy, was charged with the task of “centrally coordinating and -directing the problems and activities of the entire Medical and Health -Services” in the field of science and research. Even prior to his -appointment to that position in the fall of 1943, Rostock was one of the -responsible leaders of the German medical profession. In 1942 he was -appointed Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Berlin. In -the same year he became consulting surgeon to Handloser as the Army -Medical Inspector. He attained the rank of Generalarzt. As Chief of the -Office for Science and Research under Brandt, it was Rostock’s task to -coordinate scientific research in Germany. He received reports as to the -issuance of research assignments by the various agencies in Germany and -determined which of such assignments should be considered “urgent”. He -also served as Brandt’s alternate on the Reich Research Council. - -In the number four seat we have the defendant Schroeder, who from 1 -January 1944 until the end was the Chief of the Medical Service of the -Luftwaffe. From 1935 until February 1940 Schroeder was Chief of Staff to -his predecessor, Erich Hippke as Luftwaffe Medical Inspector. From -February 1940 until January 1944 he served as Air Fleet Physician of Air -Fleet 2, when he replaced Hippke as Chief of the Medical Service of the -Luftwaffe. Simultaneously he was promoted to the rank of -Generaloberstabsarzt. As Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, -all medical officers of the German Air Force were subordinated to him. -His position and responsibility are clear and unequivocal. - -In seat number five is the defendant Genzken, who, as Chief of the -Medical Service of the Waffen SS, was one of the highest ranking medical -officers in the SS. He joined the Nazi Party in 1926 and in 1936 he went -on active duty with the SS in the Medical Office of the SS Special -Service [disposal] Troops [SS Verfuegungstruppe], which subsequently -became the Waffen SS. In the spring of 1937 the Medical Office of the SS -was enlarged and split into two departments. Genzken was made director -of the department charged with the supply of medical equipment to and -the supervision of medical personnel in the concentration camps. In this -capacity he was the medical adviser to the notorious Eicke, predecessor -of Pohl as the commander of all concentration camps. Sachsenhausen, -Dachau, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Flossenbuerg, and Neuengamme, among -others, were under the medical supervision of Genzken. Few men could -have been better advised as to the systematic oppression and persecution -of the hapless prisoners of these institutions. - -In May 1940, Genzken became Chief of the Medical Office of the Waffen SS -in the SS Operational Headquarters, with the rank of Oberfuehrer. The SS -Operational Headquarters was subordinated to Gruppenfuehrer Hans -Juettner and was one of the twelve main offices of the Supreme Command -of the SS. While Juettner was Genzken’s military superior, his technical -or medical superior was Reichsarzt SS Grawitz for whom he served as -deputy on many occasions. In 1942 his position became known as Chief of -the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, Division D of the SS Operational -Headquarters. He attained the rank of Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and -Generalleutnant of the Waffen SS [major general]. Among the offices -subordinated to Genzken was that of the Chemical and Pharmaceutical -Service under Blumenreuter and Hygiene under the defendant Mrugowsky. -Mrugowsky was attached to Genzken’s office as a hygienist in 1940 and -was at the same time Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS -which, in turn, was subordinated to Genzken. On 1 September 1943, the -Medical Service of the SS was reorganized and, among other things, -Blumenreuter, Mrugowsky, and the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS were -transferred to the Office of the Reichsarzt SS, Grawitz. Thereafter the -direct subordination was to Grawitz rather than to Genzken. - -And then there is the defendant Blome, Gruppenfuehrer [Major General] in -the SA, Deputy Reich Health Leader, Deputy Leader of the Reich Chamber -of Physicians and the National Socialist Physicians Association, -Representative for the Department of Medical Study, Plenipotentiary in -the Reich Research Council, and Chief of Research on Bacteriological -Warfare. As the closest associate of Conti, he cannot be omitted from -the list of the powerful. Conti was the highest authority in the field -of civilian health administration. The decree of 28 July 1942, signed by -Hitler, concerning the reorganization of the medical services, defines -the position of Conti as follows: - - “In the field of civilian health administration the State - Secretary in the Ministry of Interior, and the Chief of the - Health Administration of the Reich [Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer], - Dr. Conti, is responsible for coordinated measures. For this - purpose he has at his disposal the competent departments of the - highest Reich authorities and their subordinate offices.” - (_NO-080, Pros. Ex. 5._) - -There was not a single medical question which did not reach the Reich -Health Department of the Nazi Party and the Reich Chamber of Physicians, -subordinated to which were all physicians in Germany, with the exception -of those on active Service with the armed forces and in the SS. As a -member of the Reich Research Council, Blome was personally connected -with plans and enterprises involving criminal medical experimentation. - -These were the responsible leaders of the medical services of Germany. -Who, then, is missing from this illustrious gathering? During the course -of the trial, we have frequently heard mentioned the names of Conti and -Grawitz. Indeed, the defendants would have us believe that in these two -men, together with Hitler and Himmler, resided the exclusive -responsibility for the manifold crimes with which we are here concerned. -I hardly need call attention to the fact that all are dead. All of them -took their own lives rather than face the bar of justice. No one can -deny that those men were, indeed, guilty. But this in no way serves to -exonerate these defendants, who all played important roles in the mad -scheme. It is a curious thing that not one of the defendants has pointed -an accusing finger at a living man. If they are to be believed, all the -guilty parties to these crimes are dead. According to them, justice must -seek retribution only from the cadavers. The Luftwaffe defendants have -been strangely silent as to Hippke, who, but for a belated capture, -would have a prominent seat in the dock. Those defendants who worked -with the dead criminals—such as Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick -with Grawitz, and Blome with Conti—ask the Tribunal to say that their -association was honorable and pure, that their work was in another -field, that their masters’ crimes come as a great surprise and were -never known to them. The evidence proves, however, that they not only -knew of and supported these crimes, but also took a personal part in -them. - -In connection with the responsible positions of these defendants and -most particularly of Karl Brandt and his assistant Rostock, Handloser, -Schroeder, Genzken, and Blome, I wish to call the Tribunal’s attention -to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of -_In re Yamashita_.[140] On 25 September 1945, Yamashita, the Commanding -General of the Fourteenth Army Group of the Imperial Japanese Army in -the Philippine Islands was charged with violation of the laws of -war.[141] He thereafter pleaded not guilty, was tried, found guilty as -charged, and sentenced to death by hanging. A petition for a writ of -habeas corpus was filed with the Supreme Court purporting to show that -Yamashita’s detention was unlawful for the reason, among others, that -the charge preferred against him failed to charge him with a violation -of the laws of war. - -The charge stated that Yamashita, between 9 October 1944 and 2 September -1945, in the Philippine Islands, “while commander of armed forces of -Japan at war with the United States of America and its Allies, -unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duty as commander to -control the operations of the members of his command, permitting them to -commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against people of the -United States and of its Allies and dependencies, particularly the -Philippines; and he * * * thereby violated the laws of war.” The -military commission[142] which tried Yamashita found that atrocities and -other high crimes had been committed by members of the Japanese Armed -Forces under his command, that they were not sporadic in nature but in -many cases were methodically supervised by Japanese officers, and that -during the period in question Yamashita failed to provide effective -control of his troops as was required by the circumstances. The Supreme -Court stated the question for their decision in the following language: - - “It is not denied that such acts directed against the civilian - population of an occupied country and against prisoners of war - are recognized in international law as violations of the law of - war * * *. But it is urged that the charge does not allege that - petitioner has either committed or directed the commission of - such acts, and consequently that no violation is charged against - him. But this overlooks the fact that the gist of the charge is - an unlawful breach of duty by the petitioner as an army - commander to control the operations of the members of his - command by ‘permitting them to commit’ the extensive and - widespread atrocities specified. The question then is whether - the law of war imposes on an army commander a duty to take such - appropriate measures as are within his power to control the - troops under his command for the prevention of the specified - acts which are violations of the law of war and which are likely - to attend the occupation of hostile territory by an uncontrolled - soldiery, and whether he may be charged with personal - responsibility for his failure to take such measures when - violations result.” - -The Court held that the charge was sufficient and that the law of war -“plainly imposed on petitioner, who at the time specified was military -governor of the Philippines, as well as commander of the Japanese -forces, an affirmative duty to take such measures as were within his -power and appropriate in the circumstances to protect prisoners of war -and the civilian population. This duty of a commanding officer has -heretofore been recognized, and its breach penalized by our own military -tribunals.” - -This decision is squarely in point as to the criminal responsibility of -those defendants in this dock who had the power and authority to control -the agents through whom these crimes were committed. It is not incumbent -upon the prosecution to show that this or that defendant was familiar -with all of the details of all of these experiments. Indeed, in the -Yamashita case, there was no charge or proof that he had knowledge of -the crimes. In the case before the International Military Tribunal, -proof was submitted that the Reichsbank, of which the defendant Funk was -president, had received from the SS the personal belongings of victims -who had been exterminated in concentration camps. In that connection the -Tribunal said in its judgment: - - “Funk has protested that he did not know that the Reichsbank was - receiving articles of this kind. The Tribunal is of the opinion - that he either knew what was being received or was deliberately - closing his eyes to what was being done.”[143] - -But we need not discuss the requirement of knowledge on the facts of -this case. It has been repeatedly proved that those responsible leaders -of the German medical services in this dock not only knew of the -systematic and criminal use of concentration camp inmates for murderous -medical experiments, but also actively participated in such crimes. Can -it be held that Karl Brandt had no knowledge of these crimes when he -personally initiated the jaundice experiments by Dohmen in the -Sachsenhausen concentration camp and the phosgene experiments of -Bickenbach? Can it be found that he knew nothing of the criminal -Euthanasia Program when he was charged by Hitler with its execution? Can -it be said that Handloser had no knowledge when he participated in the -conference of 29 December 1941 where it was decided to perform the -Buchenwald typhus crimes, when reports were given on criminal -experiments at meetings called and presided over by him? Was Rostock an -island of ignorance when he arranged the program for and presided over -the meetings at which Gebhardt and Fischer lectured on their -sulfanilamide experiments, when he classified as “urgent” the criminal -research of Hirt, Haagen, and Bickenbach? Did Schroeder lack knowledge -when he personally requested Himmler to supply him with inmates for the -sea-water experiments? Can it be found that Genzken had no knowledge of -these crimes when the miserable Dr. Ding was subordinated to and -received orders from him in connection with the typhus experiments in -Buchenwald, when his office supplied Rascher with equipment for the -freezing experiments? Was Blome insufficiently informed in the face of -proof that he collaborated with Rascher in the blood coagulation -experiments, issued a research assignment to him on freezing experiments -and to Hirt on the gas experiments, as well as performed bacteriological -warfare and poison experiments himself? - -No, it was not lack of information as to the criminal program which -explains the culpable failure of these men to destroy this -Frankenstein’s monster. Nor was it lack of power. Can anyone doubt that -Karl Brandt could have issued instructions to Handloser and Conti that -doctors subordinated to them were not to experiment on concentration -camp inmates? It is no excuse to say that Hitler and Himmler approved -the policy and that his efforts may have failed. Certainly they approved -it. But the fact is that Brandt also approved of and personally -participated in the program. He was the “highest Reich authority” in the -medical services, not Himmler. The medical services were Brandt’s -primary function, while Himmler had a few other tasks to keep him busy, -such as running the SS, the Ministry of Interior, the German Police, and -the Home Army, to mention a few. - -Nothing could have been easier for Handloser than to issue a general -directive that officers of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht were to -keep out of concentration camps. If he could not have done so, then we -must conclude that no one could have. Handloser had no peer in the -military medical services. And what Handloser could have done for all -the branches of the Wehrmacht, Schroeder, Genzken, and Blome could have -done with respect to the Luftwaffe, the Waffen SS, and the Reich Health -Department. - -The conclusion is inescapable that the crimes of these responsible -leaders is a hundredfold greater than that of the wretches who executed -the murderous experiments in the concentration camps. Theirs was the -power, the opportunity, and the duty to control and their failure is -their everlasting guilt. - - c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT - KARL BRANDT_[144] - - * * * * * - -To what extent is the defendant Karl Brandt implicated in the medical -experiments? - -The prosecution says he is implicated in almost all of them and refers -to his position and his connections. They state that he was the highest -Reich authority in the medical sphere; there, however, they are misled -by an error of the translator, for Karl Brandt only had the powers, -regulated in a general way, of an “Oberste Reichsbehoerde” [highest -Reich agency], but the execution of these powers was restricted to -special cases. - -This appears from the three known decrees and from the explanation -thereof given by the witnesses. Moreover Karl Brandt was not given these -functions until 1944, when these experiments were practically finished, -as is shown by the time schedule submitted to the Tribunal for -comparison. - -It has been proved that the defendant Karl Brandt himself in a broadcast -publicly called his position as Reich Commissioner that of a -“differential” (coordinator). In fact, Karl Brandt’s task was not to -order but to adjust; it was a task designed to fit his character. - -We have also learned from the presentation of evidence that the -defendant Karl Brandt did not have the machinery at his disposal for -issuing orders which was necessary for a supreme Reich authority; he -lacked the staff and the means. No one who is acquainted with a -government administration will think it possible under these -circumstances that the defendant Karl Brandt might have been able to -enforce his point of view against the resistance of the old agencies; no -one will even think it probable that anything would have been done to -facilitate such an attempt of the “new master.” - -Consequently, Karl Brandt’s position was not such as to justify the -conclusion drawn by the prosecution about his general knowledge. There -was no official channel by which everything had to come to his -knowledge, for he was not the superior of other authorities. - -It is true that the defendant Karl Brandt was supposed to be informed -about fundamental matters, that he had the right to intervene, etc. But -these were only possibilities, not in conformity with conditions in -practice. We have seen that Conti opposed him and that Himmler -prohibited direct contact with Karl Brandt within his sphere. - -Therefore, Karl Brandt can be brought into connection only with the -events in which he participated directly. - -Here it is striking first of all that the defendant Karl Brandt, who is -supposed to have been the highest authority, appears only very rarely. - - * * * * * - -Now the prosecution endeavors to establish a connection of Karl Brandt -with the other experiments via the Reich Research Council. It is true -that one can establish such a connection theoretically on paper, but the -links of the chain break when one examines them closely. Only the head -of the specialized department [Fachspartenleiter] judged the so-called -research assignments, and he only investigated whether the aim was -necessary for war, not how the experiment was to be carried out. He -could not inform others of matters which he did not get to know himself. - -The defendant Karl Brandt is charged further with not having protested -in one case when he heard about deaths caused by experiments on persons -sentenced to capital punishment in the well-known lecture on -sulfanilamide. I must point out that even if this experiment had been -inadmissible, silence would not be a crime for assent after the act is -without importance in criminal law and one can be connected with plans -and enterprises only as long as they have not come to an end. - -Now the prosecution has introduced in its closing brief the new charge -by which it holds the defendant Karl Brandt responsible for negligence. -In this respect I should like to point out that no indictment for -negligence has been brought in and that the concept of a crime against -humanity committed by negligence cannot exist. - -It will, therefore, be sufficient to emphasize that the alleged -negligence depends on the existence of an obligation of supervision and -the right to give orders through other agencies. In every state the -spheres of competency are separated and it is not possible for everyone -to interfere in everything because everyone is responsible for -everything. - -The prosecution says that the defendant Karl Brandt ought to have used -his influence and have availed himself of his intimate relationship to -Hitler to stop the experiments. Even presuming that he was aware of the -facts as crimes, his guilt would not be of a legal but only of a -political or moral nature. - -Till now nobody has been held criminally responsible for the conduct of -a superior or a friend; however, the Tribunal only has to consider the -question of criminal law. - -But in fact these close relations did not exist; the defendant Karl -Brandt was the surgeon who had to be in attendance on Hitler; Dr. -Morell, the latter’s personal physician, soon tried to undermine the -confidence placed in Karl Brandt so that he was charged with commissions -which removed him farther and farther from the sphere of his medical -activity. - -The alleged intimate relations were eventually crowned by the dictation -of a death sentence against Karl Brandt without his having been granted -even a consultation on the charges advanced against him. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT - SCHROEDER_[145] - - * * * * * - -Your Honors, a clear distinction must be made between the periods when -Professor Schroeder was not yet Chief of the Medical Service of the -Luftwaffe and the time when he held that office. We are concerned here -with the period from the beginning of 1940 to the end of 1943. During -that period Professor Dr. Schroeder was the leading medical officer of -Airfleet 2, and as such continually on service outside Germany. It was -only from 1 January 1944 onwards that he held the position of Chief of -Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. - -This shows clearly that Professor Dr. Schroeder cannot be held -responsible for all experiments in concentration camps which were -carried out prior to 1 January 1944. His sphere of duties was confined -to the medical care of the airfleet units under him and he was without -any official points of contact with the Medical Inspectorate unless the -latter was competent for his position as an airfleet doctor. - -To give a picture of Professor Schroeder’s duties at that time, I draw -attention to the fact that the personnel strength of Airfleet 2 amounted -to 200,000 to 300,000 men. - -When dealing with Professor Schroeder’s responsibility for the -high-altitude experiments in Dachau, the prosecution had overlooked the -fact that at the time in question, Professor Schroeder was airfleet -doctor and maintained that during that time he was, after Professor Dr. -Hippke, the Medical Chief, the second highest medical officer of the -Luftwaffe. From that circumstance, the prosecution draws the inference -that Professor Schroeder, as the second highest medical officer, was the -obvious deputy for Hippke and, therefore, had to know about the most -important events concerning the Medical Inspectorate. - -The defendant Professor Schroeder has in his defense proved beyond doubt -that he was not the most senior medical officer after Hippke and, -therefore, not Hippke’s deputy. As Generalarzt and Generalstabsarzt he -simply had the rank next to that of the Medical Chief, as did the other -five airfleet doctors. Above him in rank were two Generalstabsaerzte, -namely Generalstabsarzt Dr. Neumueller and Dr. Blaul. The former had his -office in Berlin and was in fact Hippke’s deputy if and when necessary. - -Professor Dr. Schroeder has also refuted the further assumption of the -prosecution that his relations with Professor Dr. Hippke had been -particularly close, for which reason Hippke had informed him about the -high-altitude experiments. In particular the witness Dr. Augustinick, -Schroeder’s personal adjutant during his service as an airfleet doctor, -confirmed that relations between Hippke and Schroeder were extremely -tense and unpleasant and that they confined themselves to discussing -only the necessary things on the occasion of their highly infrequent -official meetings. - - * * * * * - -Your Honors, if one surveys the conduct of Professor Schroeder during -the entire period from 1940 until the end of the war, one will not be -able to find one single piece of evidence to show that Professor -Schroeder at any time or in any manner violated the duties which the -calling of a physician or medical ethics prescribed for him. In no -instance did he act in a manner which could not stand examination by a -court. One may well claim that he never disregarded the maxim of -Hippocrates “primum nil nocere,” but preserved it as a guiding principle -of his actions as a doctor and officer of the medical services of the -German Luftwaffe. - -The prosecution has failed to prove that Schroeder ever ordered such an -experiment during the period of time covered by the charges of the -prosecution, or that he participated or had knowledge of any such -experiment. It has not even been proved that it was possible or -necessary for him to gain knowledge of such experiments. Professor -Schroeder has clearly explained why he could not gain such knowledge. -For the whole period of time from 1942 to the end of 1943 the -responsibility must rest on Professor Hippke, but not on Professor -Schroeder. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT - ROSTOCK_[146] - - * * * * * - -In the opening statement General Taylor said that the Reich Commissioner -for the Medical and Health System was to be regarded as the supreme -Reich authority. (_Tr. p. 19._) The emphasis on this word is confusing -and contradicts the authentic Document NO-082, Prosecution Exhibit 7 -which states, “In this capacity his agency is a supreme Reich -authority.” In this decree, then, the word “the” is missing. But this is -most essential. For the decree signifies that it is one of many “supreme -Reich authorities,” whereas the type of expression chosen by General -Taylor must lead one to conclude that it was the only “supreme Reich -authority” in the Department of Health. But, as the evidence has shown, -this was not true. In his opening statement on 9 December 1946 (_Tr. p. -19_) General Taylor said: “Rostock’s position comprised the activities -of the medical societies, the medical universities, and the Reich -Research Council.” - -During this trial none of the numerous German medical societies, with -the exception of Ahnenerbe, have been attacked. I want to point out here -that, first of all, the Ahnenerbe cannot be considered as a medical -society, as is proved beyond doubt by the plan of organization submitted -to this Tribunal. (_Sievers 2, Sievers Ex. 4_; _Sievers 3, Sievers Ex. -6_.) And let me point out that Rostock testified (_Tr. p. 3296_) that -during the war he did not know this society or even its name, and that -on 11 April 1947 the witness Sievers stated (_Tr. p. 5788_) that -Ahnenerbe’s medical institutes for scientific research of military value -were not subordinate to the Commissioner General for the Medical and -Health System, that means, were not subordinate to the office directed -by Rostock. - -Neither were the medical universities subject to his supervision. They -were subordinate to the Reich Ministry of Education. - -I shall deal with the Reich Research Council later on. First, I would -like to deal with the _Office for Science and Research_. As far as the -incorporation into the German state machinery of the Office of the -Commissioner General or the Reich Commissioner for the Medical and -Health Services is concerned, I refer to Dr. Servatius’ statements. - -Without a doubt, the prosecution has gained the wrong impression of the -extent, actual activity, and influence on other agencies of the Office -for Science and Research. - -Rostock has dealt with this question in detail during direct -examination. The Tribunal will certainly still have a recollection of -his statement. Rostock actually had no supervisory authority over -research work of the branches of the Wehrmacht and the SS. - -Brandt’s, and thus also Rostock’s, commission did not comprise all -medical affairs but only special tasks as was testified quite clearly -here by the witness Lammers on 7 February 1947. (_Tr. p. 2667._) And the -assignment given Rostock did not include supervision of practical -research. (_Tr. p. 2449._) On 23 April 1947 Professor Rose quite -correctly described the situation in Germany (_Tr. p. 6300_) when he -said that the central planning of medical research in Germany is a -phantom born 1½ years after the end of the war. True, attempts were made -to correct the impossible situation created by the lack of a central -direction of science in Germany. Attempts were made but the leading -German politicians recognized the importance of science too late. - -Germany did not have an institution with the competency and the -financial means of the American “Office of Scientific Research and -Development” under Dr. Vannevar Bush which, under the direction of the -same man, was taken over into the United States’ peace organization -under the name of “Joint Research and Development Board.” The -relationship of Rostock’s agency to the SS must be discussed briefly, -for all experiments which play a part in these proceedings were, after -all, carried out in concentration camps which came under the -jurisdiction of the SS. Rostock himself was never a member of the SS. -Apart from that, he had no other relations of any kind with the SS. When -the agency of the Commissioner General for the Medical and Health System -was created, Hitler, in the presence of Himmler, made it quite clear to -Karl Brandt that in his (Karl Brandt’s) capacity of Commissioner General -the SS was not his affair. (_Tr. p. 2324._) The practical execution of -this directive has been expressly confirmed by Genzken. (_Tr. p. 3780._) -Furthermore, the decree of 25 August 1944 (_NO-082, Pros. Ex. 7_), which -lists the agencies to which the Reich Commissioner for the Medical and -Health System could give directives, does not mention the SS. Genzken -also testified that no direct connections existed between Genzken’s and -Brandt’s offices. According to the numerous affidavits submitted by -Genzken (_Genzken 1, Genzken Ex. 3_; _Genzken 9, Genzken Ex. 9_; -_Genzken 6, Genzken Ex. 10_; _Genzken 8, Genzken Ex. 11_; _Genzken 3, -Genzken Ex. 12_; _Genzken 5, Genzken Ex. 13_; _Genzken 16, Genzken Ex. -14_; _Genzken 17, Genzken Ex. 15_; _Genzken 15, Genzken Ex. 16_) only -Grawitz was competent for scientific research within the SS. Genzken -also testified that Rostock never gave instructions in research affairs -to the SS. (_Tr. p. 3780._) - -Gebhardt testified on 4 March that Grawitz was never subordinate to Karl -Brandt and that Brandt never even had the right to give directives to -Grawitz. (_Tr. p. 3977._) He testified further that Himmler wanted to -create a “science exclusively for the SS” and that the university people -had resisted that attempt. However, Rostock must quite definitely be -considered an exponent of university scientists. The proof for the -correctness of Himmler’s intention of a “science exclusively for the SS” -is contained in a letter, dated 22 September 1942, from SS -Gruppenfuehrer Berger to the Reich Leader SS. (_Karl Brandt 120, Karl -Brandt Ex. 35._) - -When in the instruction of 15 May 1944 (_NO-919, Pros. Ex. 460_) Himmler -fixed the formalities for the carrying out of experiments on prisoners, -it was natural that the names of Rostock or Karl Brandt were not -mentioned in it. This instruction was not sent to Karl Brandt even for -information purposes as is revealed by the document itself. This should -be sufficient proof that Rostock had no influence on research activities -within the SS or the concentration camps. During discussion of the -individual experiments it has already been pointed out that he did not -even know of them. - -In regard to research commissions given to the medical chiefs of the -Luftwaffe, Schroeder had claimed (_NO-449, Pros. Ex. 130_)—and during -cross-examination he was again reproached for this document (_Tr. p. -3695_)—that all research assignments had to go through Rostock’s -office. In his affidavit Schroeder testified that this was an erroneous -description. (_Rostock 11, Rostock Ex. 10._) In another interrogation on -27 February 1947 by Dr. Krauss (_Tr. p. 3695_) Schroeder expressly -confirmed the correctness of this affidavit. For it had only been agreed -that a carbon copy of the research commission given out would be sent to -Rostock. His approval of the assignment of commissions was not required. -The witness Wuerfler, too, confirmed this during his cross-examination -by Dr. Krauss on 19 February 1947. (_Tr. p. 3142._) And in his -affidavit, Becker-Freyseng testified that the Luftwaffe did not -commission Rostock’s office to carry out research by way of experiments -on human beings. (_Rostock 10, Rostock Ex. 9._) - -During the hearing of evidence on 2 June 1947 in the case of -Becker-Freyseng, it was discussed in detail how research commissions -happened to come about, how reports were made on them and that the means -by which results were obtained were not prescribed; and that a real -control by the agency giving out the commissions was neither exercised -nor possible. I refer to the transcript which contains significant -testimony in this connection. (_Tr. pp. 8317, 8320, 8321, 8324-8326._) - -And now I would like to turn to the problems connected with the _Reich -Research Council_. Here the prosecution has charged Rostock with -responsibility because from the beginning of 1944 on he was Brandt’s -deputy in his capacity as a member of the presiding council of this -body. The fact itself is not, but the responsibility, especially in the -sense of penal law or morals, must be denied. I deny the prosecution’s -assertion, leading up to Mr. McHaney’s statement of 10 December 1946 -(_Tr. pp. 96 and 144_), that Rostock exercised a “supervisory control” -over the Reich Research Council or—on the occasion of submitting a -letter from Rascher about freezing experiments (_NO-432, Pros. Ex. -119_)—that the “Reich Research Council as a whole is implicated in a -criminal manner.” - -The question of the Reich Research Council has been cleared up -sufficiently during the examinations of Karl Brandt, Rostock, Blome, -Sievers, as well as by the affidavits of the Chief of the Managing -Committee of the Reich Research Council, Mentzel. (_Rostock 13, Rostock -Ex. 12_; _Sievers 42, Sievers Ex. 43_.) As the crux emerges in this -connection the fact that those responsible for the assignment of -research commissions were, exclusively, the managers of the special -sections and their authorized agents and plenipotentiaries who in turn -were directly responsible to Hermann Goering.[147] Rostock was not among -them. The members of the presiding board had no supervisory duty over -and no right to issue directives to the managers of the special -sections. - -The members of the presiding board were informed about research carried -out through the printed reports, the so-called “Red Booklets.” It can be -assumed “that the prosecution is in possession of these booklets. The -entire files of the Reich Research Council were handed over to the -American authorities by Professor Osenberg and some documents from these -files have been submitted during this trial.” - - * * * * * - -If the “Red Booklets” contained a single paragraph which could be used -to prove the prosecution’s claims, it can be assumed with certainty that -these booklets would have been submitted here. But this was not done. -From this the conclusion can be drawn with certainty that the members of -the Presiding Council of the Reich Research Council did not receive any -information about criminal experiments. And, as quoted before in this -connection, Mr. McHaney himself admitted during the cross-examination of -Rostock that he did not believe that, for example, Haagen informed the -Reich Research Council about his experiments in the concentration camps. - -Haagen made detailed statements on the coming into being of research -commissions in general and, also in particular, on that of the -commissions he gave out, and on the right and the duty of control held -by the agency giving the commission. (_Tr. pp. 9417-9419._) - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT - HANDLOSER_ - - * * * * * - -It is the duty of the Inspector of the Army Medical Service, as Chief of -the Army Medical Service, to insure within the scope of his official -supervision that the intermediate superiors are able to perform their -duties. He also has to see to it that the military information and -report channels are well organized in order to guarantee the required -survey of the _whole_ complex and the reporting and immediate -investigation of unusual _individual_ cases. This requires the greatest -possible care in the _selection_ of the subordinate leading medical -officers, as well as periodic inspections to be carried out by the -officers selected. - -Professor Handloser has submitted an affidavit to this Tribunal -concerning the reporting systems pertaining to military medical matters -of the Wermacht branches. (_Handloser 65, Handloser Ex. 62._) - -This document reveals the exemplary organization of the Message and -Report Organization, including the sphere of the consulting expert -physicians. The handling of the reports on “special occurrences” seems -to me to be of special importance for the problem under discussion here. -It was a standing order for the whole Wehrmacht that every office, -including the offices of the medical service, had to report to the -superior office immediately and by the quickest method each occurrence -of each circumstance outside the bounds of normal events. (_Handloser -65, Handloser Ex. 62._) - -Professor Handloser as Inspector of the [Army] Medical Service and -Surgeon General [Army Medical Chief (Heeresarzt)] was the Chief of the -Medical Service for all fronts and the zone of the interior and was -responsible to the Commander in Chief of the Army and to the Commander -of the Replacement Army. The 26,500 medical officers of the army were -subordinated to him. His field of office and the extent of his work -were, therefore, extremely wide. - -To handle such a large field of work properly—in Handloser’s case it -also included the office of the Chief of Army Medical Service—a -division of labor had to be made into time, space, and facts. The -organization and the progress of work in the sphere of the Army Medical -Inspector and the Chief of the Army Medical Service was explained by -Professor Handloser in his affidavit. (_Handloser 29, Handloser Ex. 4._) -According to this the basic and most important questions were dealt with -and decided upon in any case by Professor Handloser as the chief of the -highest office. In this connection I refer to the testimony of Dr. -Wuerfler (_Tr. p. 3135_) and affidavit of Schmidt-Bruecken. (_Handloser -62, Handloser Ex. 58._) Special attention has to be paid here to -incoming mail (messages, reports, letters). In the Handloser affidavit -(_Handloser 29, Handloser Ex. 4_), the following is stated: - - “All letters and packages, unless they were marked ‘secret’ or - ‘top secret’ (Mil.) went to the registry. Here they were opened, - the date stamp was affixed by the registrar who simultaneously - marked the letter for delivery to the Chief of Staff, or to the - various section chiefs direct. The Chief of Staff in turn marked - those communications which were to be submitted to the medical - chief with a cross in colored pencil. - - “Secret and top secret (Mil.) material was handled in a special - manner. This material was entered in a journal, and then - directed to the attention of the Chief of Staff who in turn - determined which documents were to be submitted to, or brought - to the attention of, the medical inspector immediately or after - they had been dealt with.” - -This arrangement could be made without prejudicing a regular settlement -since the authorities in question were under the command of specially -qualified people (department chiefs) headed by the Chief of Staff who -supervised the daily business routine and was responsible for all -business matters. - -With regard to Handloser it must be borne in mind that during the war he -was very rarely present in the head office (Berlin). Owing to -Handloser’s double function as an army doctor and Army Medical Chief, -and furthermore as a result of the division of the Army Medical -Inspectorate into two parts for the front and the zone of the interior, -Handloser necessarily had to spend most of his time at army headquarters -and at the front. He could only be present in Berlin for about one-tenth -of the time. (_Tr. p. 3135._) Furthermore, it became necessary to staff -the offices at home with specially qualified medical officers since they -had to act mainly on their own initiative in performing their tasks. - -The Chief of Staff of the Army Medical Inspectorate, for instance, was a -Generalarzt; the chiefs of the individual departments were Oberstaerzte. -In order to do justice to the burden and the responsibility which -Handloser had been shouldering, one must visualize the tasks and scope -of work connected with the Medical Inspectorate. Owing to the war these -tasks had been intensified to the utmost limits, there was the expansion -of the theaters of operation and the personal problems of 26,500 medical -officers. One will also realize that Handloser could only attend to the -most important and the most basic problems. - -The Chief of Staff and the departmental chiefs, as was their duty, -determined which matters were of sufficient basic and vital importance -to be referred for decision to the Army Medical Chief. - -It must be considered most unlikely for the highest authority (i. e., -the chief) of a large sphere of activity to have knowledge of all -happenings within this sphere. - -Furthermore, actual facts do not confirm that the person exercising the -_highest powers_ of command within the military hierarchy of the army is -in some degree the originator of all orders executed by a subordinate in -his hierarchy. If an order has been issued, one must determine who of -all the supervising chiefs of the offices in this hierarchy is the -originator responsible, under criminal law, for this order. If _no_ -special order was issued one must examine whether the incriminating -behavior on the part of the defendant personally was prompted by -circumstances within the scope of responsibility, under criminal law -(such as orders and regulations which rendered possible the criminal -behavior of a subordinate or appropriate consent to commit the criminal -offense, _before_ its initiation or its completion). - -Only if the prosecution maintains and proves (_a_) that the behavior of -a subordinate constitutes a punishable offense, and (_b_) that _this_ -action in particular was the result of an order issued by the superior, -or of his consent given prior to the offense, can the defendant be -charged as an abettor, offender, accomplice, or participator. - -This exhausts all possible modes of behavior _prior_ to the criminal -offense. Whatever happened afterwards _cannot_ have any relevant bearing -on this legal evidence. This is _impossible_ since all causality is -lacking. - -With regard to the question of a possible offense against the duties of -a supervisor, the following must be said: According to Art. 147 of the -German Military Penal Code “Whoever neglects to carry out the task -incumbent upon him of supervising his subordinates either intentionally -or through negligence” is liable to punishment. According to German -theory and judicial practice, the application of this law presupposes -the existence of a _direct_ relationship between superior and -subordinate. - -If anything inadmissible or punishable happens in the sphere of duty -this might be attributed to the fact that the supervising official -neglected his duty, but it is also possible that it occurred through no -fault of the supervising official. In the first instance the supervising -official is liable to punishment according to Art. 147 of the Military -Penal Code; this, however, does not apply in the latter case. The -question only arises of whether in the former case the supervising -official has to answer _before criminal law_ for the action of his -subordinate. This must be answered in the negative. An offense against -the duties of service supervision constitutes in itself an offense. It -does _not_ automatically demand that the supervising official should be -punished for the criminal offense committed by the subordinate, for -according to the criminal laws of all civilized countries, a person can -only be made responsible before criminal law for an offense committed by -_himself_, i. e., if the supervising official can be considered an -accomplice or participant in the crime of a subordinate. Only _thus_ can -the passage of count one, 3 of the indictment be understood. This -provides for a responsibility before criminal law for others, “for whose -actions the defendants are responsible.” - -The prerequisites for this case have been set forth above. - - * * * * * - -_The position of Professor Handloser as Chief of the Armed Forces Medical - Service_ - - * * * * * - -The prosecution asserts that Handloser as Chief of the German Armed -Forces Medical Service had the _supreme supervision_ and _command_ of -the medical services of the three branches of the armed forces as well -as of the Waffen SS. This is a _fundamental_ error which is based on the -incomprehensible statement of the chief prosecutor in his opening -statement: - - “Under the OKW came the High Commands of the three branches of - the Wehrmacht—the Navy (OKM), the Army (OKH), and the Air Force - (OKL).” - -From the verdict of the IMT, I quote the following in regard to the -Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces (OKW) who was the -superior of the defendant Handloser: - - “Keitel [as Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces] - did not have command authority over the three Wehrmacht branches - * * *.”[148] - -From this the prosecution should have drawn the logical conclusion that, -if the superior of Handloser, Keitel, had no powers of command over the -three branches of the armed forces and their supreme commanders, then -Professor Handloser, as his subordinate, also could have had no powers -of command over the medical chiefs attached to the staff of the supreme -commanders. The evidence has corroborated this. (_Tr. pp. 2860-3, -3129-30, 3219, 3557._) - -The prosecution refers for proof of the contrary only to the statement -of the former Air Force Chief Hippke in another trial. According to that -Hippke is supposed to have testified that Professor Handloser had been -his _professional_ superior. The incorrectness of this statement is -proved by the opposing testimonies given under oath by Professor Dr. -Schroeder who succeeded Hippke and of Generalarzt Dr. Hartleben (_Tr. -pp. 3219-20, 3225_), as well as of Generalarzt Dr. Wuerfler (_Tr. pp. -3129-30_). The evidence submitted, combined with the contents of the -decree of 1942, has shown that it was the duty of the Chief of the Armed -Forces Medical Service to direct the adjustment of _personnel_ and -_material_ affairs within the branch of the armed forces as is evidenced -by the first sentence of the decree. Within the scope of this sphere of -duties, Professor Handloser was charged with the combination or—as it -was generally called—the coordination of all _common_ problems in the -field of the Armed Forces Medical Service. The task of coordination -given Professor Handloser did not mean that thereby all common problems -automatically _came under his jurisdiction_. It was rather his duty to -examine _which_ part of the immense medical service was suitable for -coordination. Generalarzt Dr. Wuerfler has aptly called this a “program -of future fields of endeavor”. In this connection see also Professor -Schroeder (_Tr. pp. 3557, 3558_). Whenever Handloser thought that a -certain department was suitable for coordination, he tried to reach an -agreement with the medical chiefs of the branches of the armed forces; -for since he had no powers of command, the coordination could only take -place in conjunction with the medical chiefs. After coordination had -been accomplished, he was empowered to issue “directives” in this field -which did not have the character of an order. Hartleben replies to the -question of my colleague Dr. Steinbauer: - - “Directives give general guiding principles, an order must be - carried out to the letter.” - -Wuerfler expresses the same in the following manner: - - “A superior has the authority to give orders. One can only speak - of a right to issue directives where there exists no authority - to give orders and no relationship of superiority.” - -Research is a field which by its nature is unsuitable for coordination. -For, while it is possible to alleviate personnel and material -deficiencies in the personnel and material fields of the medical service -by coordination, or in other words to achieve a practical useful effect, -such is not the case with respect to research. The prosecution also -questioned Professor Rostock regarding the problem of coordination in -the field of research and argued that through such a coordination, that -is to say, such a concentration of research activities which were -carried on in various places, personnel and material could be allocated -more effectively. Professor Rostock has made some remarks on this -account which are of fundamental importance because they disprove the -thesis of the prosecution with objectively convincing reasons. According -to him, many conditions in the military and medical fields are suitable -for coordination, while research _cannot_ be coordinated. It is better -for the aim in view when _several_ scientists work on the _same_ -research subject, than if only one office were engaged in this activity. -Professor Rostock says quite rightly: - - “If someone were to say to me, give this matter all your - attention, and the same thing is being worked on at this place - and that, then, in all probability, I should have looked for - reasons _why_ it was necessary for _both_ places to be doing the - same thing.” - -And again: - - “I would regard it as an _absolute_ mistake to say to one - scientist: You are not allowed to work on that any longer, the - other one is working on that * * *.” (_Tr. p. 3352._) - -Witness Hartleben, too, took the same point of view during -cross-examination. (_Tr. p. 3217._) To the question of the prosecutor: - - “Would it not have been the task of the Chief of the Armed - Forces Medical Service to coordinate the separate research - activities in the same field in order to make the most - advantageous use of available personnel and material”? - -he replied: - - “In my opinion the Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Services - must in such a case make an investigation; because it is after - all the case in science and research that very often it becomes - necessary to pursue many different ways in order to arrive at - some aspired goal, and the case may occur—and I can imagine it - very well—where it is desirable to have several scientists - engaged on the same problem * * *.” - -Therewith Rostock confirms the defense argument of Handloser on this -count. Summing up: The end aspired to by coordination—saving of -personnel and material—is incompatible with the very nature of -successful research. The order for the coordinating of personnel and -material can, therefore, never be applied to the field of research. - -Quite another thing is the creation of working groups within the same -field of research. The purpose of the creation of such a working group -was not to be a saving of personnel and material but mutual information -and discussion in order to check how far the individual researchers had -advanced by different routes. - -Such a measure proposes to counteract the exaggerated secrecy and -egotistical withholding of information often noticed in the field of -research. Inventors and scholars regard their discoveries as -revolutionary. As prototypes of individualism they are intent on keeping -the details of their research secret even, or precisely, from other -scholars who work in the same field. This fact is aptly characterized in -the document submitted by the prosecution. (_NO-262, Pros. Ex. 108._) I -quote from this letter of the former Chief of the Air Force Medical -Service, Dr. Hippke: - - “The difficulties exist in quite another field. They are - questions involving the vanity of the individual scientists, - each and every one of whom wants to obtain all the results of - the research individually, and who often can only be brought to - altruistic cooperative work with the greatest difficulties.” - -The Court will see from this that the creation of working groups in the -field of hepatitis research in accordance with the suggestion of Dr. -Schreiber at the Breslau Hepatitis Conference in June 1944 had nothing -to do with coordination, but that it left the number and the _activity_ -of the different scholars engaged in hepatitis research untouched. The -Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Service also had in his very limited -office staff no department for research. (_Tr. pp. 3218, 3224._) Only in -the service regulations which became effective on 1 September 1944 -(_NO-227, Pros. Ex. 11_), which however practically never went into -effect. (_Tr. p. 3140_; _Handloser 29, Handloser Ex. 4_.) Under 14a one -of the tasks of the Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Services was -mentioned as being the taking of uniform measures in the field of -medical science, including the field of research and the fight against -disease. However, here, too, it was not a matter of the subordination of -the research institutions of the branches of the armed forces but of -examining a “problem” _whether_ cooperative work in certain fields of -research was feasible. Actually, due to developments since September -1944, coordination in the field of research never took place. The -research activities of the different branches of the armed forces as -well as of the Waffen SS were and remained independent. What is -important in this trial in regard to Handloser’s responsibility is the -question _whether_ he as Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Services had -any functions in the field of research and if so what they were. He -himself has stated and Generalarzt Dr. Hartleben, who had an -authoritative part in the drafting of the decree of 1942 (_NO-080, Pros. -Ex. 5_) and of its supplementary service regulations, has declared that -the research activities of the branches of the armed forces and of the -Waffen SS did _not_ belong to the official department of the Chief of -the Armed Forces Medical Services. For the department of research of the -Air Force Medical Inspection Service the aforementioned Air Force -Medical Inspector Hippke has furnished convincing proof. The prosecution -submitted a letter from Hippke of 6 March 1943 to SS Obergruppenfuehrer -Wolff (_NO-262, Pros. Ex. 108_) from which I quote— - - “Your opinion that I as _responsible head_ of all _research - activities in medical science_ had objected to freezing - experiments on human beings and had thereby obstructed the - development is erroneous.” - -Furthermore I call attention to Document NO-289, Prosecution Exhibit 72 -and Document 1612-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 79, which confirm the -independence of the air force research work, also to the affidavits of -Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng. (_Handloser 22, Handloser -Ex. 33_; _Handloser 23, Handloser Ex. 34_.) - - * * * * * - -It is undisputed that _one_ connection existed between the two medical -services, viz, the one with _that_ part of the Medical Service of the -Waffen SS which was connected with the Waffen SS divisions during -mobilization at the front. It was under _those_ medical offices of the -army which corresponded to the respective superior military offices. The -divisions of the Waffen SS came under the corps commander of the army; -correspondingly, the Medical Service of the Waffen SS divisions came -under the corps doctor; the medical service led via the army medical -officer [Armeearzt], the army group medical officer, and the army -medical chief [Heeresarzt] to the army medical inspector and above him, -to the Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Service. - -_None_ of these offices, neither military nor medical, could interfere -with the essential “character,” the appointment of personnel equipment -make up, organization, etc., of the division. The order pertained only -to _mobilization_ at the front (tactical subordination). Beyond that, -_all_ authority remained in the hands of the superior office of the -Waffen SS, the Operational Main Office [Fuehrungshauptamt], Reich Leader -SS (Himmler-Grawitz). - -The mobilization of the medical units, of the field hospital ambulances -and hospital trains, i. e., of the various units of the division medical -officer SS, were handled by him in accordance with instructions from the -division. Higher orders in regard to the care of SS wounded and sick -were given to the SS division medical officer via the army corps medical -officer by the army medical chief. In the ordinary course of medical -matters, even the army medical officer was not included with the -exception of casualty report service. The Army Medical Inspector and the -Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Service had practically no occasion to -interfere. That only happened when some _special event_ was reported to -the higher offices. - -The Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Service had the power only for the -length of time of subordination to the armed forces to delegate -authority, by request of the army medical chief through the Army Medical -Inspector, to the army or corps medical officer to make personnel or -material adjustments within his department. - -_With the exception of the fighting divisions_, the Chief of the Armed -Forces Medical Services had no authority over _any_ other unit or -establishment of the Waffen SS, any more than over Dr. Genzken as Chief -of the Waffen SS Medical Service beyond the limit of the front -divisions. In summing up, then, it is to be noted that the relationship -between the armed forces medical offices and those of the Waffen SS was -limited in time and practice to the medically necessary tactical -subordination and to the medical service during combat operations. This -goes to prove that Professor Handloser did not have any influence on the -medical organization of the Waffen SS, that is to say, on the entire -range of affairs and provinces of the medical service and the health -service. This applies especially to medical research and the -institutions created for that purpose. This has been proved (_a_) by the -affidavit of Professor Handloser on the diagram of the Medical Service -of the Armed Forces; (_b_) by the affidavit of Professor Mrugowsky -(_Handloser 17, Handloser Ex. 5_); (_c_) by the affidavit of Dr. Genzken -(_Handloser 16, Handloser Ex. 6_); (_d_) by the official footnote in the -service instructions of 1944 (_NO-227, Pros. Ex. 11_); (_e_) by the -affidavit of Professor Gebhardt (_Tr. p. 4191_); (_f_) by the expert -testimony of Hartleben, and (_g_) by the testimony of Wuerfler (_Tr. pp. -3132, 3140, 3142_). - -The contention of the prosecution that Professor Handloser as Chief of -the Armed Forces Medical Service had the _supervision_ of the medical -service of the Waffen SS is thereby refuted. - -This also invalidates the basic thesis of the prosecution on which is -founded the indictment of Professor Handloser, since it has been proved -that the Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Services had, in the field of -medical research, neither commanding authority nor supervisory powers -outside of the scope of military medical inspection. - -What has been stated here for the time of the decree of 1942—1 August -1942 until 31 August 1944—applies equally to the time beginning 1 -September 1944. The decree of 7 August 1944 (_NO-227, Pros. Ex. 11_) -represented an extension of the original development toward -coordination, without accomplishing the subordination of the medical -chiefs of the branches of the armed forces as requested by the Chief of -the Armed Forces Medical Services. What actually was accomplished was a -change in the advisory authority he had held up to then, into commanding -authority in the sphere of the technical duties to the Chief of the -Armed Forces Medical Services. - -Professor Handloser has testified under oath (_Handloser 29, Handloser -Ex. 4_) and witness Hartleben confirmed the same in his statements that, -as has already been pointed out above, nothing was changed as far as the -field of research of the branches of the armed forces and of the Waffen -SS was concerned. The aim of centralizing the widely separated -institutions was wrecked, except in those cases which were solely -conditioned by the war after 1 September 1944, particularly also owing -to the fact which was brought out in the testimony that in the meantime -other offices had taken over the management of the research work in the -various fields (1) Reich Research Council, (2) Office for Science and -Research, and (3) Society for Military Research. - -In conclusion and by way of precaution, I also wish to mention the -following for the consideration of the Tribunal in connection with the -problem of the commanding authority of Handloser as Chief of the Armed -Forces Medical Services: - -_Supposing_ for a moment that Professor Handloser had had the power of -command, there is nothing that speaks more convincingly for his -_exoneration_ than the fact that the prosecution has not produced one -single document (no order, no regulation, no letter) from which could be -deduced that he had made use of his commanding authority in the sense of -ordering the performance of an illegal experiment. - -In view of the length of time for which he had held the position as -Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Services from August 1942 until May -1944, this fact is of _decisive_ importance. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT - GENZKEN_ - - * * * * * - - _Position and activities_ - -The witness Juettner states the following about his position and his -activities (_Genzken 15, Genzken Ex. 16_): “Dr. Genzken’s position as -Chief of the Medical Office of the Waffen SS was the position of a -superior officer of the medical units of the Waffen SS. He was -exclusively responsible for their training, the formation of new units -and their equipment. He had to find substitutes for casualties in the -fighting units.” - -The Waffen SS itself was newly created in the summer of 1940. At that -time it was composed of approximately 580,000 men. (_Tr. p. 3792 ff._) -In addition to that there were about 320,000 casualties, so that there -was a total strength of approximately 900,000 men. The official medical -care of the whole Waffen SS was in the hands of the defendant Dr. -Genzken. At the beginning, the medical personnel of the Waffen SS was -about 800 men and at the end approximately 30,000 men. At the beginning, -two hospitals were available to the Waffen SS and at the end of the war, -sixty. Six hygiene institutes grew out of a single one in Berlin, etc. - -Apart from that, the whole extensive medical organization during the war -had to be built up by Dr. Genzken from nothing and under the -particularly difficult circumstances caused by war which are -sufficiently well known to the high Tribunal. The medical inspectorates -of the three Wehrmacht branches could refer back to long years of -experience, in the case of army and navy even tens of years. This was -not the case in the young arm of the Waffen SS. - -For this reason alone it is obvious that the scientific research and -planning was not included in Dr. Genzken’s sphere of work, as he -repeatedly emphasized during his presentation of evidence and as he -underlined by the presentation of affidavits. (_Genzken 3, Genzken Ex. -12_; _Genzken 5, Genzken Ex. 13_; _Genzken 6, Genzken Ex. 10_; _Genzken -8, Genzken Ex. 11_; _Genzken 9, Genzken Ex. 9_; _Genzken 15, Genzken Ex. -16_.) - -But Dr. Genzken did not even have the time to concern himself seriously -with scientific matters. That was only natural. His most pressing -worries were to organize newly the medical services of the Waffen SS as -regards personnel and material and to look after it continuously. His -position brought with it a considerable responsibility in the whole -province of medical services of the Waffen SS by establishing new -medical units, equipping of new hospitals so that he had no time left -for any other work. It has become absolutely clear during this trial -that scientific research and planning was the task of the Reich -Physician SS. May I point out in this connection that all the -experiments which were discussed in this trial can be traced back almost -without exception to Himmler’s and Grawitz’ own initiative. Whether they -were high altitude and cooling experiments or typhus and sulfanilamide -experiments, all of them were started by one of Himmler’s or Grawitz’ -orders. This fact is still more underlined by Document 002-PS, -Prosecution Exhibit 39. It is, as it says there literally, concerned -with the taking over of research work by the Reich Physician SS, -Grawitz. The latter had asked at the end of 1942 that 53 officers be -allotted to him for scientific research work. In the whole document, -which consists of several reports of the Reich Ministry of Finance and -the Reich Physician, the scientific research work in the whole of the -medical sphere is mentioned again and again as directed and ordered by -the Reich Physician. Even though the application was rejected, later on -the lack of typhus vaccine gave, for example, Dr. Grawitz the -opportunity to establish, with Himmler’s authorization, an experimental -station for typhus research in the Buchenwald concentration camp as his -first own scientific institute. - -Grawitz has also frequently emphasized to the defendant Mrugowsky that -he alone was competent for the research and planning tasks in the -medical branch within the SS, and that Dr. Genzken had nothing to do -with it. (_Genzken 1, Genzken Ex. 3._) - -That Dr. Genzken was never interested in the activity and the sphere of -work of the Reich Physician, nor even tried to be given these tasks, -follows from the fact that in 1941 Himmler chose Dr. Genzken to became -Grawitz’ successor. When Genzken’s superior officer, the Chief of the SS -Operational Main Office [Fuehrungshauptamt] Juettner, informed him about -this request, he at once rejected it energetically, as he preferred to -remain in the medical service of the troops and as he thought himself -not suitable for scientific research. (_Genzken 15, Genzken Ex. 16._) - -Dr. Genzken during his interrogation gave the Court a detailed -description of the entire staff available to him for the completion of -his duties. He expressly pointed out that in the entire organization of -his medical office, no office for scientific research and planning was -scheduled, and that therefore, in fact no such office actually existed. -(_Tr. p. 3796._) This fact is also emphasized by the fact that in the -Medical Office of the Waffen SS no group of “consulting physicians” -existed as specialists for the various specialized branches of medical -science. (_Genzken 18, Genzken Ex. 17._) - -Further, at the end of August 1943, important changes in the form of the -organization were effected by order of Himmler, so that by way of a -clinical and organizational concentration of the entire medical services -of the SS, Dr. Genzken had to turn over his entire pharmaceutical -equipment and hygiene institutes, as well as four office chiefs to the -office of the Reich Physician SS and Police. Thereby these institutes -were under the sole supervision and responsibility of the Reich -Physician from this time onwards. - -It must be emphasized that Dr. Genzken himself never was in the -foreground as a scientist. - -During the First World War he was in the navy and concerned with the -organization of the medical services for submarines, then he was for 15 -years a general practitioner in a small town, was then occupied with -organizational duties in the Reichswehr Ministry, and then with similar -duties in the Waffen SS; he never held a chair or a professorship and -did not have the honorary title of “Professor”. - -As in the course of the trial the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS was -often connected with the experiments, may I be allowed to point out the -following: - -The Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS was the only one in the home -country. It was not only available for the hygienic problems of the -Waffen SS, but also for all other organizations of the SS and therewith -also for the Reich Physician for his scientific researches. During the -dispute between Grawitz and Dr. Genzken before the Chief of the SS -Operational Main Office, the fields of authority between the two were -again clearly defined and it was expressly pointed out that the -institutes and the research equipment were to remain available to the -Reich Physician for his research work (_Tr. p. 3789_; _Genzken 3, -Genzken Ex. 12_.). - -The Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS was, for budgetary reasons, -subordinate organizationally to the Medical Office of the Waffen SS and -therewith to the defendant Dr. Genzken. Despite this, however, Genzken -did not have complete and sole authority over the Institute. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT - BLOME_ - - * * * * * - -What connection have all these facts (concerning deterioration of the -standard of the German medical profession) with the defendant Dr. Blome? -He was never Chief of the German Medical Service nor was he in charge of -higher education. He was merely the deputy of the Reich Chief Physician, -and as such his only legitimate task was to direct the medical -professional associations. Then again he only served in this capacity as -the deputy of Dr. Conti (who has been frequently mentioned here), and he -had to work within the limits imposed by Dr. Conti. If the prosecution -intends to be fair, it may hold Dr. Conti responsible for the abuses and -mismanagement which occurred. It was he who, as Under Secretary in the -Reich Ministry of the Interior, was in charge of the whole federal -public health system. He, therefore, was the actual Reich Chief -Physician, not Dr. Blome who would never have been indicted at all if -Dr. Conti had not committed suicide and a deputy had not been needed, -even after his death, to represent him in the dock. From the very -beginning Dr. Blome had nothing to do with medical studies. He was only -concerned with the doctors after they had completed their studies and -training and were subjected to the disciplinary authority of the Reich -Chamber of Physicians as licensed physicians. If the medical training -was no good, if medical officers were released with insufficient -scientific knowledge or with bad or wrong professional ethics, then the -professor may be considered responsible for this if their teaching did -not reach the required goal. On the other hand perhaps the heads of the -clinics were responsible. Perhaps they did not imbue their practitioners -and assistants with the proper professional ethics. Whatever the case -may have been, one should not merely look around for a scapegoat to -shoulder the moral responsibility. - - * * * * * - -After all Blome was not consulted in 1935 when the Nuremberg laws -against Jewish citizens were enacted, nor in 1938 and the years -following when Jewish doctors were gradually prevented from practicing. -Blome is in no way responsible for this. These laws were promulgated by -the Reich, that is, by the supreme national authority. They were ordered -by Reich law and they not only affected the medical profession but also -applied to all independent professions and to the entire economic life. -They destroyed the economic existence of the Jewish doctor as well as -that of the Jewish attorney, author, and businessman. The medical -professional organization was not asked at the time whether it agreed to -these measures—as a matter of fact, it was only subsequently informed -of the Reich laws enacted and consequently was confronted with -accomplished facts. If these laws and government orders were crimes -against humanity, very well, then the statesmen and the ministers who -introduced such laws can be held responsible for them, also the -Reichstag deputies who enacted such laws, and the government agencies -which published these laws and regarded them as generally binding. But -it would be unfair today to try to impose the moral guilt for this -development upon a man who was always a mere subordinate executive agent -with no independent authority to give orders; a man who always fought -against the manifestations of radicalism and tried wherever possible to -have the federal laws enforced without harshness. This, for instance, is -proved by the affidavit of Dr. Strakosch (_Blome 22, Blome Ex. 21_) who -himself had two Jewish grandparents and who owed the defendant Blome the -preservation of his economic existence and who can confirm from his own -experience that Blome was never one of the fanatical and ruthless types -of the Hitler regime. Dr. Strakosch confirmed that Blome always intended -to act as a mitigating influence and that Blome was purely an idealist -and not an opportunist in his political convictions. - ------ - -[139] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July -1947, pp. 10718-10796. - -[140] 66 Supreme Court 340 (1946). - -[141] Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. IV, pp. 3-4, London, -1948. - -[142] Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. IV, p. 2, London, -1948. - -[143] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 306, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[144] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July; 1947, -pp. 10797-10817. - -[145] Final Plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 1946, -pp. 10942-10971. - -[146] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947, -pp. 10850-10873. - -[147] Defendant before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the -Major War Criminals, Vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[148] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 288, Nuremberg, 1947. - - - C. Responsibility of Subordinates for Acts Carried Out Under Superior - Orders - - a. Introduction - -Article II 4 (b) of Control Council Law No. 10 states that—“The fact -that any person acted pursuant to the order of his government or of a -superior does not free him from responsibility for a crime, but may be -considered in mitigation.” The defendants argued, however, that superior -orders freed them from criminal responsibility entirely. They also -argued that superior orders to engage in the conduct alleged as criminal -constitute a mitigating circumstance. - -Extracts from the closing statement of the prosecution on the same point -appears on pages 957 to 958. A summation of the evidence on this point -by the defense has been taken from the final pleas on behalf of the -defendants Brack and Fischer. It appears below on pages 959 to 970. This -argumentation is followed by two sections from the testimony of -defendants on pages 970 to 974, extracts from the examination of -defendant Karl Brandt by Judge Sebring, and an extract from the -cross-examination of defendant Rose. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE - PROSECUTION_[149] - - * * * * * - -The defense of Handloser is a general denial. He says in effect that: I -was a soldier. I was in charge of the medical administration of the -Wehrmacht, but had no power and no right to issue orders, and that -whatever may have happened, I am not responsible for it. It is -interesting to note that this defense is very similar to that put -forward by Field Marshal Keitel[150] in this courtroom approximately a -year ago. He was represented by the same defense counsel. Keitel also -said that he could not issue orders. We have already discussed in some -detail the position of Handloser, and it has been established beyond a -shadow of a doubt that he was the supreme authority in the military -medical services. We need not stop to consider the practical difference -between an order and a directive. We have pointed out that the -opportunity and power to control the participation of the military -medical services in these crimes was his. The evidence shows that -Handloser was connected with a number of criminal medical experiments -including the typhus and other vaccine experiments both in Buchenwald -and Natzweiler, and the freezing, sulfanilamide, jaundice, gas, and the -gas oedema experiments, among others. - - * * * * * - -Rudolf Brandt also pleads superior orders in mitigation. There is no -evidence that Himmler _ordered_ Brandt to participate in any crime. -Brandt did so willfully. There is no evidence that Brandt retained his -position out of fear. He flourished in it. Nothing would have been -easier for him than to be replaced by request or feigned inefficiency. -Brandt was not a soldier on the field of battle. His activities were far -removed from the confusion of the front lines. He did not act in the -spontaneous heat of passion; he had full time to consider and reflect -upon his course of action. He continued in his position from 1933 until -his arrest by the Allies in 1945, no less than 12 years. This fact alone -removes any basis for mitigation. Moreover, assuming that Brandt was -ordered to commit the criminal acts which are the subject of this trial, -when there is no fear of reprisal for disobedience, obedience represents -a voluntary participation in the crime. Such is the case with Rudolf -Brandt. Finally the doctrine of superior orders cannot be considered in -mitigation where such malignant and numerous crimes have been -continuously and ruthlessly committed over a period of many years. - -What has been said with respect to Brandt applies equally to the -defendant Fischer who also pleads superior orders. He knew at the time -he performed these experiments that he was committing a crime. He knew -the pain, disfigurement, disability, and risk of death to which his -experimental victims would be subjected. He could have refused to -participate in the experiments without any fear of consequences. This he -admitted in saying, “It was not fear of a death sentence or anything -like that, but the choice confronting me was to be obedient or -disobedient during war, and thereby set an example, an example of -disobedience.” (_Tr. p. 4374._) Such an admission removes any basis for -mitigation. A soldier is always faced with the alternative of obeying or -disobeying an order. If he knows the order is criminal, it is surely a -hollow excuse to say it must be obeyed for the sake of obedience alone. - - * * * * * - - c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT - BRACK_[151] - - * * * * * - -The treatment of the question of responsibility for euthanasia in this -room encounters great difficulties insofar as there is not only -considerable ignorance of certain peculiarities of the German position -in constitutional matters, but above all a great difference between the -thinking of continental European and of transatlantic jurists on matters -of constitutional statutory law. Law and morals have for centuries been -sharply differentiated on the European continent in juristic and above -all in legislative thinking in contrast to the states across the ocean. -This historical fact must be taken into consideration, for only then can -the realization be reached that in a question of _German_ constitutional -law only that development can be decisive which legal training has had -in Germany in deviations from the constitutional law of the Weimar -Republic, since the Enabling Act of 24 March 1933 and the Head of the -State Law of 1 August 1934. - -With these laws Hitler was given all authority as head of the state and -chief of the government, in full recognition of the Fuehrer principle -which had been in operation for over a year, with approval by the -plebiscite of 19 August 1934. - -From this time on Hitler incorporated the will of the people, and the -resulting functions. He had thus become the Supreme Legislator of the -Reich. A concluding resolution of the Reichstag was only the -confirmation of his primary declaration of his will. - -Among the independent promulgations of laws, which were represented as -direct emanations of his authority, the declarations of Hitler’s will -which were at first called “decrees” and later uniformly “Fuehrer -decrees” assumed the most important role. In them the distinction, still -customary under the Weimar constitution, between legislative and -executive is overcome, as Hitler proclaimed in his Reichstag speech of -30 January 1937 in the words: “There is only one legislative power and -one executive.” - -Therefore the decrees united material law with organizational measures -and administrative directives, especially insofar as they were addressed -only to a group of persons gathered together in a certain community. -Proclamation in the Reich Law Gazette [Reichsgesetzblatt], countersigned -by the competent departmental minister, and later the competent -chancellery chief, no longer played a decisive role in 1937. The Fuehrer -principle was already in full operation at this time. It no longer -tolerated the dependence of the authority to promulgate original laws -which was granted to the Fuehrer by the plebiscite of 1934 on the -observance of formal regulations. The only decisive thing that remained -was the fact of the proclamation of the will of the Fuehrer, not its -form. Hitler’s Decree of 1 September 1939 concerning euthanasia, -addressed to Brandt and Bouhler, was therefore in form a legally quite -acceptable act of government of the head of the state. - -My conclusions from the examination of the development in legal history -of the Fuehrer principle in the Third Reich agrees with the testimony of -the witnesses Lammers,[152] Engert, and Best. This testimony is -underlined by the standpoint of the Reich Minister of Justice Guertner -and by Schlegelberger as representatives of supreme Reich authorities, -as transmitted to us by Lammers and Engert. Finally, it is affirmed by -University Professor Dr. Hermann Jahrreiss, who a few days ago dealt -with the questions arising in this connection in great detail and -exhaustively in the Justice Case before Military Tribunal III.[153] I -may ask the Tribunal in judging this legal question to consider these -statements. - -Brack was convinced of the legality of this decree on the basis not only -of juridical but also other effective indications of much more -significant independent steps taken by Hitler in domestic and foreign -policy. - -Brack’s conviction, that of a nonjurist, of the legality of the Fuehrer -Decree, based on the explanations and information of his juristic -associates and the concurring or at least nondissenting statements of -the highest representatives of the Reich justice authorities at the -meeting of General Public Prosecutors on 23 April 1941, can therefore -not be doubted. (_Brack 36, Brack Ex. 36._) - -Even if one denies the legal validity to the Hitler Decree, though I -regard it as valid, Brack committed a legal error at least as far as the -particular legal position of Hitler within the state is concerned, under -which decree otherwise illegal activities are to be excused. This legal -error is sufficient to abolish his guilt or at least the grave guilt of -deliberate intent. According to the German law valid at the time, at any -rate, this is the case. According to that, a so-called error outside of -criminal law—which is indeed the error about the legal validity of the -decree of 1 September 1939—excludes the unlawful character which is an -essential of the term “deliberate intent”. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT - FISCHER_[154] - - * * * * * - - _Acts committed under orders and in relation to a specific military - position_ - -The defendant Fischer participated in the experiments for testing the -effect of sulfanilamide upon orders of his medical and military superior -Karl Gebhardt. It is recognized in the penal code of all civilized -nations that action upon orders represents a reason of exemption from -guilt, even if the order itself is contrary to law, but binding for the -subordinate. In examining this legal question, one proceeds from the -principle that the court disregards the reasons of justification and -exemption from guilt put forward by me in the case of the defendant Karl -Gebhardt and considers that both the order given to the defendant Karl -Gebhardt himself, as also the passing on of this order to the defendant -Fritz Fischer, are contrary to law. - -The adherence to a binding order, even though it be contrary to law, on -the part of the subordinate creates for him a _reason of exemption from -guilt and, therefore, renders him also exempt from punishment_. This -question is disputed only insofar as some consider the action of the -subordinate not only excused but even “justified.” Further examination -of this question at issue seems, however, not necessary in these -proceedings, since the result is the same in both cases, namely, the -perpetrator’s exemption from punishment. - -The _decisive question_ in the case on hand therefore is whether and to -what extent the “order” for the sulfanilamide experiments was _binding_ -for the persons carrying it out. - -In view of the fact that, in principle, the law in force at the time is -applicable, as the defendants lived under this law and it was binding -for them, the question is, therefore, to be examined within the -framework of Article 47 of the German Military Penal Code. According to -this provision, a subordinate who obeys is liable to be “punished as an -accessory if it is known to him that the order given by the superior -concerned an act which has for its purpose to commit a general or -military crime or offense.” - -However, it is not correct, as is sometimes accepted, that Article 47 of -the German Military Code itself settles the question in how far military -orders are either binding or not binding. This is a question of public -and administrative law. But it must always concern an “order regarding -service matters,” the same as in other military conditions, that is to -say, something which “pertains to military service.” These assumptions -are immediately present both in the case of the defendant Karl Gebhardt -and in that of the defendant Fritz Fischer. Both were medical officers -of the Waffen SS, therefore a unit of the German Wehrmacht in which -especially the principle of obedience was strongly pronounced. Karl -Gebhardt was Fritz Fischer’s immediate superior; in matters of duty, his -order to assist with the medical experiments to be undertaken was a -binding order for the young medical officer Fischer. - -In the investigation of the legal questions resulting from these -circumstances, we will separate the case of the defendant Karl Gebhardt, -where the “order” was issued from a very high authority, namely, from -the Head of the State and the Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht, from -the case of the defendant Fritz Fischer, in which there is a question of -an especially close relationship to his immediate military superior. -Later, I will return especially to the general questions of public law -concerning the command of the Fuehrer. - -The evidence has shown that the order for testing the effectiveness of -sulfanilamide emanated from the highest authority, namely, from the -Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht personally. The reasons of -justification of the probable acceptance of the wartime state of -emergency and the balancing of interests, as discussed fully already in -the investigation of the case of the defendant Karl Gebhardt, gain -importance independently first in the person of the defendant Fritz -Fischer. But they have influence, of course, on the legality or -illegality of the order. The investigation of this question has shown -that the given order as such was _legal_. Even if one would not want to -take this for granted, however, for a subordinate even an illegal order -of _a binding_ nature is of moment. - -Article 47 of the German Military Penal Code, as already observed, lets -the punishment of the subordinate stand, if “it was known” to the latter -that the order of the superior “concerned an act which had for its -purpose to commit a general or military crime or offense.” In all other -cases the punishment touches _only_ the commanding superior. - -Just as in most military courts of other armies, the judicial practice -concerning Article 47 of the German Military Penal Code also shows the -tendency to a vast limitation of the penal responsibility of the -subordinate. That this tendency has grown from the purpose “of -guaranteeing the performance of the duty of obedience obligatory to the -subordinate, in the interest of military discipline and the Wehrmacht’s -constant readiness for battle,” changes nothing in the fact as such. -Here it is a matter of evaluating the _legal position at the time the -act was committed_. - -Article 47 of the German Military Penal Code establishes a penal -responsibility on the part of the subordinate only if it was _known_ to -him that the order concerned an act _the purpose_ of which was a crime -or an offense. German judicial practice demands in addition a _definite -knowledge_ on the part of the acting subordinate; accordingly, cases of -mere doubt (conditional intent) or mere obligation to know (negligence) -are expressly excluded. Neither is the idea satisfactory that the -performance of the order resulted objectively in the committing of a -crime or an offense. On the contrary, the superior must have _intended_ -this and this fact must have been _known_ to the subordinate. - -In applying these principles, there cannot be any doubt that these -suppositions were not fulfilled either in the case of the defendant Karl -Gebhardt, or in the case of the defendant Fritz Fischer—to say nothing -at all of the defendant Herta Oberheuser. Both of these defendants -regarded the order given them by the Head of the State as a measure of -war which was conditioned by special circumstances caused by the war -itself, and by means of which a question should be answered which was of -decisive importance not only for the wounded, but beyond that, should -furnish a contribution in the struggle for the foundations of life of -the German people and for the existence of the Reich. Both defendants -were convinced at that time that the order given them should have any -other _purpose_ but the committing of a punishable act. - -Then, in regard to the particular position of the defendant Fritz -Fischer, the meaning of an order of the _immediate military superior_ is -to be investigated. At the beginning of the experiments, the defendant -Fritz Fischer had the rank of a first lieutenant. He took part in the -experiments at the direct command of his military and medical superior -who held the rank of general. In view of the surpassing authority of the -defendant Karl Gebhardt, as surgeon and Chief of the Hohenlychen Clinic -and in view of his high military position, a refusal was completely out -of the question. - -On principle, no other points of view but those already discussed apply -here either. Whether the order is a direct or an indirect one offers no -reason for difference. In the case of the defendant Fritz Fischer, -however, the following is still to be considered: whether it _was known, -etc._, to the subordinate is always to be especially examined according -to the _special circumstances of the moment_. At the same time, of -course, a decisive part is played by the fact that the order for these -experiments was given to the defendant Fritz Fischer, not by a military -superior who would not have been in a position or duly qualified to give -an _expert_ decision of this question, but by a person who not only -occupied a high military rank, but beyond that had just that particular -experience in the sphere in which the experiments were to be carried -out. The defendant Karl Gebhardt was not only a recognized and leading -German surgeon, but he had also as consulting surgeon to the Waffen SS -and as chief of a surgical reserve combat unit acquired special -experience in the sphere of combat surgery and in the treatment of the -bacteriological infection of wounds. The reason for this order given to -the defendant Fritz Fischer by his chief must have affected him all the -more convincingly, as it coincided exactly with the experience which the -defendant Fritz Fischer himself had gained as medical officer with the -First SS Armored Division in Russia. - -In addition, there was the special framework in which all this took -place. Fritz Fischer had been released from the combat unit on account -of serious illness and had been ordered to the Hohenlychen Clinic. He -was under the immediate impression of hard experience at the front. In -Hohenlychen he found himself in a clinic which operated in peacetime -conditions under the energetic direction of a man extraordinarily gifted -in organizational and scientific matters. Every building, every -installation of this recognized model institute, the numerous clinical -innovations and modern methods of treatment, every one of the many -successful treatments of Hohenlychen was inseparably bound up with the -name of the chief physician Karl Gebhardt and gave unconditional and -unlimited value to his word and his authority in his entire environment. - -For all these reasons, the defendant Fritz Fischer could have had no -doubt at all but that the performance of the order given him was from -the medical standpoint a requisite and permissible war measure. -Precisely the open carrying-out of the individual experimental measures, -with the exclusion of every duty of secrecy, as well as the report of -the results which was provided for in advance and also executed before a -critical forum of the highest military physicians, were especially -suited to nip in the bud any distrust of the justification of these -experiments in the mind of the defendant Fritz Fischer. - - * * * * * - -As Fritz Fischer strictly adhered to the part-orders given to him and -did not show any initiative of his own, it excludes him moreover from -any responsibility concerning questions which were outside his sphere of -action. It is impossible to make Fritz Fischer responsible for questions -connected with the legal and medical preparation of the directives for -the experiments and the cosmetic after-treatment. Apart from this -viewpoint, the special conditions of _public law_ which existed in -Germany at the time of the action ought to be mentioned. They were -explained by Professor Jahrreiss in his opening speech before the -International Military Tribunal in the proceedings against Hermann -Goering and others.[155] Professor Jahrreiss thereby represented the -following point of view: - - “State orders, whether they lay down rules or decide individual - cases, can always be measured against the existing written and - unwritten law, but also against the rules of international law, - morals, and religion. Someone, even if only the conscience of - the person giving the orders, is always asking: Has the person - giving the order ordered something which he had no right to - order? Or has he formed and published his order by an - inadmissible procedure? But an unavoidable problem for all - governmental systems lies in this: Should or can it grant the - members of its hierarchy, its officials and officers, the - right—or even impose on them the duty—to examine at any time - any order which demands obedience from them, to determine - whether it is lawful, and to decide accordingly whether to obey - or refuse? _No governmental system which has appeared in history - to date has given an affirmative answer to this question._ Only - certain members of the hierarchy were ever granted this right; - and they were not granted it without limits. This was also the - case, for instance, under the extremely democratic constitution - of the German Reich during the Weimar Republic and is so today - under the occupation rule of the four great powers over Germany. - - “_In as far as such a right of examinations is not granted to - members of the hierarchy, the order has legal force for them._ - - “All constitutional law, that of modern states as well, knows - acts of state which must be respected by the authorities even - when they are defective. Certain acts of laying down rules, - certain decisions on individual cases which have received legal - force, are valid even when the person giving the order has - exceeded his competence or has made a mistake in form. - - “If only because the process of going back to a still higher - order must finally come to an end, orders must exist under every - government that are binding on the members of the hierarchy - under all circumstances and are therefore law where the - officials are concerned, even if outsiders may see that they are - defective as regard content or form * * *. - - “* * * The result of the development in the Reich of Hitler was - at any rate that Hitler became the supreme legislator as well as - the supreme author of individual orders. It was not least of all - under the impression of the surprising successes, or what were - considered successes in Germany and abroad, above all during the - course of this war, that he became this. Perhaps the German - people are—even though with great differences between north and - south, west and east—particularly easily subjected to actual - power, particularly easily led by orders, particularly used to - the idea of a superior. Thus the whole process may have been - made easier. - - “Finally the only thing that was not quite clear was Hitler’s - relationship to the judiciary. For, even in Hitler-Germany, it - was not possible to kill the idea that it was essential to allow - justice to be exercised by independent courts, at least in - matters which concern the wide masses in their everyday life. Up - to the highest group of Party officials—this has been shown by - some of the speeches of the Reich Justice Leader, the defendant - Dr. Frank, which were submitted here—there was resistance, - which was actually not very successful, when justice in civil - and ordinary criminal cases was also to be forced into the “_sic - jubeo_” of the one man. But, apart from the judiciary, which was - actually also tottering, absolute monocracy was complete. The - Reichstag’s pompous declaration about Hitler’s legal position, - dated 26 April 1942, was actually only the statement of what had - become practice long before. - - “The Fuehrer’s orders were law already a considerable time - before this Second World War. - - “In this state order of his, the German Reich was treated as a - partner by the other states, and this in the whole field of - politics. In this connection I do not wish to stress the way (so - impressive to the German people and so fatal to all opposition) - in which this took place in 1936 at the Olympic Games, a show - which Hitler could not order the delegations of foreign nations - to attend, as he ordered Germans to the Nuernberg Party Rally in - the case of his state-shows. I should like rather only to point - out that the governments of the greatest nations in the world - considered the word of this “almighty” man the final decision, - incontestably valid for every German, and based their decisions - on major questions on the fact that Hitler’s order was - incontestably valid. To mention only the most striking cases, - this fact was relied upon when the British Prime Minister, - Neville Chamberlain, after the Munich Conference, displayed the - famous peace paper when he landed at Croydon. This fact was - adhered to when people went to war against the Reich as the - barbarous despotism of this one man. - - “No political system has yet pleased all people who live under - it or who feel its effects abroad. The German political system - in the Hitler era displeased a particularly large and - ever-increasing number of people at home and abroad. - - “But that does not in any way alter the fact that it existed, - not lastly because of the recognition from abroad and because of - its effectiveness, which caused a British Prime Minister to make - the now world-famous statement at a critical period, that - democracies need two years longer than the totalitarian - governments to attain a certain goal. Only one who has lived as - if expelled from among his own people, amidst blindly believing - masses who idolized this man as infallible, knows how firmly - Hitler’s power was anchored in the anonymous and innumerable - following who believed him capable only of doing what was good - and right. They did not know him personally, he was for them - what propaganda made of him, but this he was so uncompromisingly - that everybody who saw him from close-to and saw otherwise, knew - clearly that resistance was absolutely useless and, in the eyes - of other people, was not even martyrdom. - - “Would it therefore not be a self-contradictory proceeding if - _both_ the following assertions were to be realized at the same - time in the rules of this trial? * * * - - “* * * The functionaries had neither the right nor the duty to - examine the orders of the monocrat to determine their legality. - For them these orders could not be illegal at all, with one - exception which will be discussed later—an exception which, if - carefully examined, is seen to be only an apparent one—namely - with the exception of cases in which the monocrat placed - himself, according to the indisputable values of our times, - outside every human order, and in which a real question of right - or wrong was not put at all and thus a real examination was not - demanded. - - “Hitler’s will was the ultimate authority for their - considerations on what to do and what not to do. The Fuehrer’s - order cut off every discussion. Therefore, a person who, as a - functionary of the hierarchy refers to an order of the - Fuehrer’s, is not trying to provide a ground for being exempted - from punishment for an illegal action, but he denies the - assertion that his conduct is illegal; for the order which he - complied with was legally unassailable. - - “Only a person who has understood this can have a conception of - the difficult inner struggles which so many German officials had - to fight out in these years in face of many a decree or - resolution of Hitler’s. For them such cases were not a question - of a conflict between right and wrong: Disputes about legality - sank into insignificance. For them the problem was one of - legitimacy; as time went on, human and divine law opposed each - other ever more strongly and more frequently. - - “Therefore, whatever the Charter understands by the orders which - it sets aside as a ground for exemption from punishment, can the - Fuehrer’s order be meant by this? Can it come within the meaning - of this rule? Must one not accept this order for what it was - according to the interior German constitution as it had - developed, a constitution which had been explicitly or - implicitly recognized by the community of states? * * * - - “* * * The one supreme will became, quite simply, technically - indispensable. It became the mechanical connecting link for the - whole. A functionary who met with objections or even resistance - to one of his orders from other functionaries only needed to - refer to an order of the Fuehrer’s to get his way. For this - reason many, very many, among those Germans who felt Hitler’s - regime to be intolerable, who indeed hated him like the devil, - looked ahead only with the greatest anxiety to the time when - this man would disappear from the scene; for what would happen - when this connecting link disappeared? It was a vicious circle. - - “I repeat: _An order of the Fuehrer’s was binding—and indeed - legally binding—on the person to whom it was given, even if the - directive was contrary to international law or to other - traditional values._” - -So much for the statements of Professor Jahrreiss before the -International Military Tribunal. The development presented here seems to -be particularly relevant for the case of the defendant Fischer, since he -himself in the witness box described his attitude towards the Fuehrer’s -command in a way which, because of his very youth, his idealistic -conception of life and duty and his manly confession, was particularly -convincing. - -It is true that in the face of all this, reference will be made to -Article 8 of the Charter for the International Military Tribunal which -reads: “The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his -Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but -may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines -that justice so requires.” - -Accordingly, Law No. 10 of the Control Council, Article II, paragraph 4 -reads— - - “(_b_) The fact that any person acted pursuant to the orders of - his government or of a superior does not free him from - responsibility for a crime, but may be considered in - mitigation.” - -In the face of this objection the following is to be pointed out: - -At the time of their actions the defendants were subject to _German_ law -according to which the degree of their responsibility was determined -and, even today, must justly be referred back to _that moment_. The -following should be emphasized, however, in case the Tribunal should not -apply the legal provisions in force at the time of the act, but should -base its judgment on Law No. 10 of the Control Council, though it -represents a manifest violation of the prohibition of retroactive -application of penal laws. - -Even from the above-named provision of the Law of the Control Council, -the principle cannot be derived that every command of a superior should, -under the aspect of Penal Law, be _irrelevant_ under all circumstances. -This also applies to the problem of the exemption from responsibility -and exemption from penalty. The provision only states that the existence -of such a command _in itself_ does not exempt one from the -responsibility for a crime; it does not, however, preclude by any means -that in connection with other facts it may be relevant for this problem -as well. - -_The guiding legal_ aspect underlying these deliberations is contained -in the concept of the so-called conflict of duties which has been -repeatedly mentioned before. This aspect does not coincide _eo ipso_ -with the “_objective_” principle of balancing interests, as discussed in -examining the case of the defendant Karl Gebhardt. In addition one must -insist on consideration of the “_subjective_” position of the person -committing the act. - -In other words, in order to arrive at a _just_ appreciation of the case, -the _personal situation of the person committing the act at the moment -of its being committed_ will have to be weighed up as well. This applies -particularly to the personal situation into which the person committing -the act has been put by reason of a higher command which is binding for -him and influences him. _Besides_ the general “objective” principles of -balancing interests, such a special “subjective” state of coercion can -and must therefore be considered in his favor also. A “command” can, -therefore, according to the concrete situation, shift the boundaries of -culpability further in his favor. - -Reinhardt Frank, the great German criminologist, has with regard to the -problem of the so-called conflict of duties established the maxim, “In -as far as the conflict of duties has not been expressly regulated the -maxim should prevail that the higher, the more significant, the more -important duty is to be fulfilled at the expense of the less high one -and that, therefore, omission to fulfill the latter one is not contrary -to law.” - -With good reason it has always been emphasized that in such a situation -of conflict of diversified duties the decision is, in the end, not to be -found in positive law, but it is of an _ethical nature_. That is why, in -such a situation, a certain leeway must be left to the personal -conscience; it is not possible here to arrive at everything through the -coarse means of an outward penal provision. This completely “personal” -character of genuine ethical conflicts has also been fully recognized -and emphasized in the authoritative philosophical literature. Nicholai -Hartmann, Ethics (2d Edition, 1935, pp. 421-422) says for instance, with -regard to genuine conflicts of values: - - “It is a fateful error to believe that such problems can be - solved on principle in theory. There are border-line cases in - which the conflict in conscience is grave enough to require a - different solution according to the particular ethos of the - person. For it lies in the very nature of such conflicts that - values are balanced, and that it is not possible to emerge from - them without becoming guilty. Accordingly, a man in this - situation cannot help making a decision. A person faced with - this serious conflict, incurring such a measure of - responsibility, ought to decide this— - - “_To follow the dictates of his conscience to the best of his - ability, that is, according to his own live sense of the level - of values and accept the consequences._” - -No further argument should be needed for demonstrating that just from an -_ethical_ point of view measuring of such _personal_ decisions by -standards of _penal law_ is out of the question. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Testimony_ - Page - Extracts from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt 970 - Extract from the testimony of defendant Rose 973 - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT[156] - -_EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -JUDGE SEBRING: * * * Witness, for the sake of clarification, let us -assume that it would have been highly important to the Wehrmacht to -ascertain, as a matter of fact, how long a human being could withstand -exposure to cold before succumbing to the effects of it. Do you -understand that? Let’s assume secondly that human subjects were selected -for such freezing experiments without their consent. Let’s assume -thirdly that such involuntary human subjects were subjected to the -experiments and died as a direct or indirect result thereof. Now, would -you be good enough to inform the Tribunal what your view of such an -experiment is—either from the legal or from the ethical point of view? - -DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: I must repeat once more, in order to make sure -that I understood you correctly. When assigning the experiment the -following things are assumed: highest military necessity, involuntary -nature of the experiment, and the danger of the experiment with eventual -fatality. In this case I am of the opinion that, when considering the -circumstances of the situation of the war, this state institution which -has laid down the importance in the interest of the state at the same -time takes the responsibility away from the physician if such an -experiment ends fatally and such a responsibility has to be taken by the -state. - -Q. Now, does it take away that responsibility from the physician, in -your view, or does it share that responsibility jointly with the -physician, in your view? - -A. In my view, this responsibility is taken away from the physician -because, from that moment on, the physician is merely an instrument -maybe in the same sense as in the case of an officer who receives an -order at the front and leads a group of three or four soldiers into a -position where they are certain to meet death. That position, if I apply -it to German conditions during the war, is in principle the same. I -don’t believe that the physician as such, from his ethical and moral -feelings, would carry out such an experiment without this assurance of -the authoritarian state which gives him a formal and legal assurance on -one side and, on the other side, gives him the order for the execution. -Naturally, in this case, it is a theoretical question since I cannot -survey the position in the case of the freezing experiment. I don’t know -how this assurance was given and how the order was given. Basically, I -want to differentiate between the order for an experiment which arises -from medical needs as such and where, under the circumstances, the state -only has a secondary interest on the basis of medical initiatives, and I -would differentiate between the reverse state of affairs where the state -uses medical activities. - -Q. The Tribunal has one further question of interest. - -In your view, would an order which authorized or directed a subordinate -medical officer or subordinate medical group to carry on a certain -medical experiment—let us assume for the moment this freezing -experiment—we have then a general order, let us assume, directing a -certain institute to carry on freezing experiments without delineating -or specifying in detail the exact course of those experiments. Would you -conceive that such an order would authorize the medical officer to whom -the order was addressed to select subjects involuntarily and subject -them to experiments, the execution of which that officer absolutely knew -or should have known would likely result in death to the subject? - -A. May I have your last sentence repeated, please? This question is -extremely difficult to answer. The order given in such a case has to be -taken into consideration. May I, perhaps, answer with an example of such -an order. If Himmler gives an order to a Dr. “X” and tells him to carry -out a certain experiment, then it is possible that Dr. “X” did not wish -to comply with this order. In such a case, however, Dr. “X” will not -have overlooked the importance of the experiment itself, the same way as -the lieutenant who received a certain military order—and we are here -concerned with a military order—does not overlook that he would have to -hold out with a group of eight men at a bridgehead and that this would -end in his death. In spite of that, this officer with his eight men to -whom he passed this order on would meet their death at that position. So -this physician “X” who received this order from Himmler would under the -circumstances have to carry out an experiment without being able to -judge the validity of the reasons which prompted a central agency. - -If a physician had not carried out that experiment, he would have got -into a position where he would be called to account if he had not -carried out that experiment. In this case, and there we have to consider -the authoritarian nature of our state, the personal feeling and the -feeling of a special professional, ethical obligation has to subordinate -itself to the totalitarian nature of the war. - -I must say once more, these are theoretical assumptions which I am -expressing here. At the same time I could express how difficult such -decisions are if I refer to an example which recently was quoted here, -and I mean the eight hundred inmates in a prison in America who were -infected with malaria. I don’t want to refer to this example in order to -justify the experiments which are under indictment here, but I want to -express that the question of the importance of an experiment is, and -remains, basically of decisive importance. Even there a certain number -of fatalities had to be expected from the start when infecting eight -hundred people with malaria. - -The voluntary attitude which an inmate adopts and with which an inmate -makes himself available is a relatively voluntary agreement. I don’t -think it would be the same if one were to receive a voluntary agreement -from people who are present here. One has to consider the nature of the -voluntary agreement. In my opinion, this round figure of eight hundred -speaks against the voluntary agreement of all. I would assume that if it -was seven hundred and thirty-five or seven hundred and forty, it would -be different, but the round figure of eight hundred seems to indicate -that there was a certain order for the experiment before the beginning -of the experiment, and these experiments, too, were directed from the -point of view of a superior state interest, and this superior state -interest, at the same time, takes over the responsibility for the result -of the experiment with reference to the experimental subject. For -responsibility in a medical sense cannot be assumed at all since even a -negative series of experiments speaks against the urgency and necessity -of these experiments; and particularly when answering the question about -voluntary or involuntary, dangerous or nondangerous natures, it is very -difficult and almost impossible to say basically with reference to -experiments that experiments on human beings, taking all these things -into consideration, are a crime or are not a crime. The question can -only be judged when over and above the expected result experiments are -still continued. If a result has been established and further -experiments on human beings are then carried out, they are not -important, and the experiment which is not important is only a -dilettante experiment. In that case I would from the start assume the -word “criminal,” but when dealing with important experiments, it is -necessary to take into consideration all the circumstances which played -a part at that time; that is to say, the important experiments, from the -moment a result is achieved, become unimportant. From that moment on, in -my opinion, the experiment is criminal. Therefore, that when speaking -about human experiments at all, one must put the results at the disposal -of the state—not only to one state but internationally—so that -experiments which are carried out in Russia and which had shown results -would not be continued in other countries. - -With reference to freezing experiments, I can only say that in a certain -form, without saying “criminal” or “not criminal,” they showed their -value. The indication for that is that the results in the American Air -Force were considered as something extraordinary and helped the American -Air Force to gain years, and I think that these experiments would also -be of use in mines, where a number of fatalities occur because of -freezing. If you consider the freezing experiments in that light, the -victims in effect are tragic and are to be regretted, but with reference -to subsequent periods these victims are a real sacrifice, for hundreds, -or maybe thousands of people might save or prolong their lives because -of it. - - * * * * * - -Q. Dr. Brandt, is it not true that in any military organization, even -one of an authoritarian state, there comes a point beyond which the -officer receiving an order subjects himself to individual -responsibility, at least in the eyes of civilized society, for carrying -out any military orders, particularly if the order is unlawful or -transcends the limit of extreme military necessity? - -A. There was a general law stating that an officer does not have to -carry out an order which he realizes is a crime, but the question with -reference to these various experiments is whether the man concerned can -realize that what he is doing is a crime. If he can realize it, then, in -my opinion, he cannot comply with the order. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[157] - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: And you suggested and asked him [defendant Mrugowsky] to -carry out experiments with Copenhagen vaccine in the typhus experiments -in Buchenwald, didn’t you? - -DEFENDANT ROSE: I was asking whether there was still a possibility of -carrying out such a series of experiments. That is quite understandable, -considering the situation, because one can see from my report of 29 May -1943, that this seemed to constitute a considerable advance on the -experiments already made on animals. I knew that such experiments had -been carried out earlier, although I basically objected to these -experiments. This institution had been set up in Germany and was -approved by the state and covered by the state. At that moment I was in -a position which might correspond to that of a lawyer who is, perhaps, a -basic opponent of capital punishment. On occasions when he is dealing -with leading members of the government or with lawyers during public -congresses or meetings, he will do everything in his power to maintain -his opinion on the subject and have it put into effect. If, however, he -does not succeed, he stays in his profession and in his environment in -spite of this. Under certain circumstances he may perhaps even be forced -to pronounce such a death sentence himself, although he is basically an -opponent of the principle. Of course, it does not go as far as this in -my case. I am only in touch with people of whom I assume that they -somehow are included in the official channels of such an institution, -which I disapprove of basically, and which I want to see removed. - -Q. Professor, six persons died in this experiment with the Copenhagen -vaccine, didn’t they? - -A. Yes. They were six people who were furnished by the Reich Criminal -Police Office through ordinary channels as determined by competent -agencies. - - * * * * * - ------ - -[149] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July -1947, pp. 10718-10796. - -[150] Defendant before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the -Major War Criminals, Vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[151] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18 July 1947, -pp. 11220-11244. - -[152] Defendant in case of United States _vs._ Ernst von Weizsaecker, et -al. See Vols. XII, XIII, XIV. - -[153] United States _vs._ Josef Altstoetter, et al. See Vol. III. - -[154] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 1947, -pp. 10922-10941. - -[155] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. XVII, pp. 458-494, -Nuremberg, 1948. - -[156] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3, 4, -5, 6, 7 Feb. 1947, pp. 2301-2661. - -[157] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21, -22, 23, 24, 25 Apr. 1947, pp. 6081-6484. - - - D. Status of Occupied Poland Under International Law - - a. Introduction - -The defense argued that Poland lost its sovereignty as a result of the -complete occupation of Polish territory and the cessation of Polish -military resistance in September 1939 and held that in consequence -Germany could treat Polish nationals according to German law. An extract -from the closing statement of the prosecution on this point appears on -page 975. The argument, that international law concerning belligerent -occupation was thus not applicable to the treatment of Polish nationals, -appears in the extracts from the final plea for defendant Gebhardt on -pages 976 to 979. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE - PROSECUTION_[158] - - * * * * * - -In the case of some of the defendants, and this is especially true with -respect to Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser in connection with the -sulfanilamide experiments, it is to be expected that the argument will -be made that crimes against Polish, and perhaps also Czech nationals, do -not constitute war crimes within the meaning of Control Council Law No. -10. This argument is based upon the proposition that Germany was no -longer bound by the rules of land warfare in many of the territories -occupied during the war because Germany had completely subjugated those -countries and incorporated them into the German Reich, and therefore -Germany had the authority to deal with the occupied countries as though -they were part of Germany. Thus, the defense placed in evidence the -Russo-German Boundary and Friendship Treaty of 28 September 1939 as well -as certain German decrees concerning the administration of occupied -Poland. (_Gebhardt 14, Gebhardt Ex. 13_; _Gebhardt 15, Gebhardt Ex. 14_; -_Gebhardt 16, Gebhardt Ex. 15_.) Without stopping to argue the point -that that part of Poland administered by the so-called General -Government, from which the Polish subjects for the sulfanilamide -experiments came, was never incorporated into the Reich, it will be -sufficient to point out that this argument was disposed of by the -International Military Tribunal. In its judgment, the following was -said:[159] - - “In the view of the Tribunal, it is unnecessary in this case to - decide whether this doctrine of subjugation, dependent as it is - upon military conquest, has any application where the - subjugation is the result of the crime of aggressive war. The - doctrine was never considered to be applicable so long as there - was an army in the field attempting to restore the occupied - countries to their true owners, and in this case, therefore, the - doctrine could not apply to any territories occupied after 1 - September 1939.” - -The argument also has no validity with respect to Czech nationals. The -International Military Tribunal said that: - - “As to war crimes committed in Bohemia and Moravia, it is a - sufficient answer that these territories were never added to the - Reich, but a mere protectorate was established over them.”[160] - - * * * * * - - c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT - GEBHARDT_[161] - - * * * * * - - _The Legal Status of the Experimental Subjects_ - -“Inmates of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp who had been sentenced -to death by German courts martial in the General Government as members -of the Polish Resistance Movement were employed as experimental subjects -(in the sulfanilamide experiments).” The witnesses questioned in Court -and all experimental subjects from whom the prosecution has submitted -affidavits have openly professed their membership of the Resistance -Movement and it must be added that some of them exercised relatively -important functions in the Resistance Movement. If the legal status of -the experimental subjects at the time of their activity in the -Resistance Movement is examined, the result will be as follows: - -LEGAL STATUS OF POLAND - -The former Polish State ceased to exist as an independent subject from -the point of view of international law at the latest on 28 September -1939. After the entire area of the former Polish State had been occupied -by the German armies and the troops of the Soviet Union, and the Polish -Government had gone into Romanian territory under pressure of the -invasion of the Red Army on 17 September 1939, the two occupational -powers decided to carry out a plan previously agreed upon which was to -settle all matters concerning the territory of the former Polish State -without interference by any other powers. This was brought about by the -German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Pact of 28 September 1939. -(_Gebhardt 14, Gebhardt Ex. 13._) I refer to the contents of the pact -for particulars. It was on this day, at the very latest, that Poland -ceased to exist as a sovereign state and as bearer of rights and duties. -Due to war, the former Polish State ceased to exist as a state and -therewith as a subject from the point of view of international law. - -The territory of the former Polish State, insofar as it fell within the -sphere of Soviet interests, became part of the U. S. S. R., to which it -still belongs today. - -The Polish territory, which fell into the German sphere of interests and -which is designated in detail in the Supplementary Protocol to the -German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Pact, became either part of the -German Reich or—and this concerned the larger part of the area—was -made into an independent borderland of the German Reich under the -designation General Government. The constitutional laws governing this -territory were based on the Decree for the Administration of the -Occupied Polish Territory issued on 12 October 1939 by the Fuehrer and -Reich Chancellor. I have presented the decree to the Tribunal as -Document Gebhardt 15, Gebhardt Exhibit 14. Article 4 of this decree -states that Polish law was to continue to be valid insofar as it was not -at variance with the taking over of the administration by the German -Reich. Article 5 gives the Governor General the right to issue laws by -ordinance for the territory under his administration. - -Corresponding to the generally acknowledged principles of international -law the ordinances issued by the Governor General were binding for the -population of this territory. This is especially true of the Ordinance -for Combating Deeds of Violence in the General Government, which was -issued on 31 October 1939 (Ordinance Gazette for the General Government, -page 10), and which also laid the foundation for the competence of the -courts martial. This ordinance had become necessary because the military -government, which had been active until 26 October 1939, ceased to exist -when the Fuehrer Decree of 12 October 1939 became valid. - -In this connection, the following reply must be made to the objection of -the prosecution in their final plea on the morning of the 14th. - -First: No Polish Government was in existence when these experimental -subjects were working for the Resistance Movement in 1940 and 1941. The -Polish Government had ceased to exist as an independent subject under -international law. The government in exile in London under General -Sikorski and the government in Lublin were only subsequently recognized -by the Western Allies. - -Second: When the experimental subjects were working for the Resistance -Movement in 1940, no Polish Army in combat existed. - -Third: The prosecution seems to have endeavored to express that this -Military Tribunal should not primarily apply territorial penal law but -the principles of international law. For this very reason the -prosecution pointed out that the jurisdiction and the judicial authority -within the General Government were the consequence of an aggressive war -and could not, therefore, be legally recognized. This concept does not -apply. It must first be pointed out that the principles of international -law, which have the function to regulate legal issues during war, make -no distinction between an aggressive war, a defensive war, or a -justified war. This is particularly stated in the Fourth Hague -Convention of 1907, the so-called Hague Land Warfare Convention. - -The objection of the prosecution is not justified for another reason. -The evidence before the IMT showed that the attack on Poland was carried -out by Germany in at least the same manner as it was carried out by the -U.S.S.R., and that this becomes quite evident from the contents of the -German-Soviet secret treaty of 23 August 1939. Nevertheless the U.S.A. -did not hesitate to recognize the territorial claims made by the -U.S.S.R. in the area of the former Polish State. This recognition took -place _de facto_ as well as _de jure_ during the Yalta Conference in -February 1945 and the Potsdam Conference on 2 August 1945. - -The prosecution cannot therefore object today to this state of affairs -as far as the legal issues arising from this attack are concerned. - -The Ordinance for Combating Acts of Violence in the General Government -and the introduction of the courts martial connected with it would, by -the way, have been permissible, even if though the former Polish State -had not ceased to exist as a subject in the realm of international law. -Military occupation of foreign states (_occupatio bellica_), too, gives -the occupying power the right to take all the measures necessary for the -maintenance of order and safety. It is a generally acknowledged legal -conception that in this case the occupying power takes over the power of -the conquered state, not as its deputy, but rather by authority of its -own laws guaranteed by international law. The right is expressly -acknowledged in the third section of the Hague Convention for Land -Warfare [Section III, Annex to the Convention]. There can be no doubt -that the introduction of courts martial is one of these rights of the -occupying power. In fact it seems inconceivable that an occupying power -should not be allowed to take measures for the effective combating of a -resistance movement, whose sole and openly admitted purpose it was to -undermine and destroy the authority of the occupying power and the -safety of the occupation troops. The right to do this can be contested -even less in our case, since with the outbreak of the German-Soviet war, -the territory of the former General Government became the largest -military transit area which has ever existed in the history of war. The -methods by which the Polish Resistance Movement tried to attain its -goals do not need to be examined here in detail. It is sufficient to -point out that the Resistance Movement was in a position to interfere to -a considerable extent with German Army reinforcements against the Red -Army; this interference took the form of blasting of bridges, -transmission of important military information, etc. The Polish women -used for the sulfanilamide experiments were members of this Resistance -Movement and they supported it wherever they could. However much we -respect the courage and patriotism of these women, we cannot refrain -from emphasizing the fact that they violated laws which at that time -were binding for them. This violation gave the occupation power the -right to impose adequate punishment upon them. It seems unthinkable that -the members of a resistance movement such as the Polish one would not -have been sentenced to death during the war for their resistance -activities by any other state which found itself in a position similar -to that of Germany at that time. Latest developments show that the -occupation powers in Germany now do not hesitate to impose the most -severe penalties in similar cases. - -For example, the American Military Government for Germany in its -Ordinance No. 1, which was issued to insure the safety of the Allied -Armed Forces and to reestablish public order in the territory occupied -by them, lists, among others, the following acts as crimes punishable by -death: - - Communication of information which may be dangerous to the - security or property of the Allied Forces, or unauthorized - possession of such information without promptly reporting it; - and unauthorized communication by code or cipher; - - Interference with transportation or communication or the - operation of any public service or utility; - - Any other violation of the laws of war or act in aid of the - enemy or endangering the security of the Allied Forces. - -A comparison of these regulations with the contents of the court martial -regulations of the Governor General for the Occupied Polish Territories, -presented in Document Book II for the defendant Gebhardt, shows clearly -that here generally the same facts were declared to be punishable with -the death sentence. - -In order to exclude any doubts with regard to the legal status of the -experimental subjects, it may be pointed out in conclusion that the -members of the Polish Resistance Movements, at least when the prisoners -belonged to these movements, did not fulfill the conditions of Article I -of the Hague Convention for Land Warfare of 1907 [Section I, Chapter I, -Annex to the Convention] concerning militia and voluntary corps not -affiliated with the army and having a certain military organization. The -Polish Resistance Movement at that time (1) had no leader who was -ostensibly at its head and responsible for the conduct of the members; -(2) it wore no particular badge recognizable from a distance; (3) it did -not wear its arms openly; and finally, (4) in its conduct of war it -disregarded the laws and practices of war. In view of these facts the -members of the Resistance Movement could not have been treated as -prisoners of war even if at that time a Polish Army had still been in -the field. In view of the fact that the prisoners in question were women -serving in the communications and espionage branches of the Resistance -Movement, this possibility was eliminated from the very beginning. - - * * * * * - ------ - -[158] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July -1947, pp. 10718-10796. - -[159] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 254, Nuremberg, 1947. - -[160] [Ibid.] - -[161] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947, -pp. 10874-10911. - - - E. Voluntary Participation of Experimental Subjects - - a. Introduction - -There was considerable contention in the case as to whether an inmate of -a German concentration camp could give his voluntary consent to -participate in medical experiments. The prosecution argumentation on -this point appears in the opening statement on pages 27-74 and in the -closing statement. The applicable extract from the closing statement of -the prosecution appears below on pages 980 to 983. Selections from the -defense argumentation on this point have been taken from the closing -brief for the defendant Karl Brandt and from the final plea for the -defendant Ruff. These appear below on pages 983 to 992. The following -selections from the testimony have been taken from the evidence on this -point: Extracts from the direct examination of the prosecution witness -Dr. Eugen Kogon, and extracts from the cross-examination and redirect -examination of the prosecution’s expert witness Dr. Andrew C. Ivy. These -extracts appear below on pages 993 to 1004. - - b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution - - _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE - PROSECUTION_[162] - - * * * * * - -* * * It is the most fundamental tenet of medical ethics and human -decency that the subjects volunteer for the experiment after being -informed of its nature and hazards. This is a clear dividing line -between the criminal and what may be noncriminal. If the experimental -subjects cannot be said to have volunteered, then the inquiry need -proceed no further. Such is the simplicity of this case. - -What then is a volunteer? If one has a fertile imagination, suppositious -cases might be put which would require a somewhat refined judgment. No -such problem faces this Tribunal. The proof is overwhelming that there -was never the slightest pretext of using volunteers. It was for the very -reason that volunteers could not be expected to undergo the murderous -experiments which are the subject of this trial that these defendants -turned to the inexhaustible pool of miserable and oppressed prisoners in -the concentration camps. Can anyone seriously believe that Poles, Jews, -and Russians, or even Germans, voluntarily submitted themselves to the -tortures of the decompression chamber and freezing basin in Dachau, the -poison gas chamber in Natzweiler, or the sterilization X-ray machines of -Auschwitz? Is it to be held that the Polish girls in Ravensbrueck gave -their unfettered consent to be mutilated and killed for the glory of the -Third Reich? Was the miserable gypsy who assaulted the defendant -Beiglboeck in this very courtroom a voluntary participant in the -sea-water experiments? Did the hundreds of victims of the murderous -typhus stations in Buchenwald and Natzweiler by any stretch of the -imagination consent to those experiments? The preponderance of the proof -leaves no doubt whatever as to the answer to these questions. The -testimony of experimental subjects, eyewitnesses, and the documents of -the defendant’s own making, establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that -these experimental subjects were nonvolunteers in every sense of the -word. - -This fact is not seriously denied by the defendants. Most of them who -performed the experiments themselves have admitted that they never so -much as asked the subjects whether they were volunteering for the -experiments. As to the legal and moral necessity for consent, the -defendants pay theoretical lip service, while at the same time leaving -the back door ajar for a hasty retreat. Thus, it is said that the -totalitarian “State” assumed the responsibility for the designation of -the experimental subjects, and under such circumstances the men who -planned, ordered, performed, or otherwise participated in the experiment -cannot be held criminally responsible even though nonvolunteers were -tortured and killed as a result. This was perhaps brought out most -clearly as a result of questions put to the defendant Karl Brandt by the -Tribunal. When asked his view of an experiment, which was assumed to -have been of highest military necessity and of an involuntary character -with resultant deaths, Brandt replied: - - “In this case I am of the opinion that, considering the - circumstances of the situation of the war, this state - institution, which has laid down the importance of the interest - of the state, at the same time takes the responsibility away - from the physician if such an experiment ends fatally, and such - responsibility must then be borne by the state.” (_Tr. p. - 2567._) - -Further questioning elicited the opinion that the only man possibly -responsible in this suppositious case was Himmler, who had the power of -life and death over concentration camp inmates, even though the -experiment may have been ordered, for example, by the Chief of the -Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and executed by doctors subordinated to -him. Most of the other defendants took a similar position, that they had -no responsibility in the selection of the experimental subjects. - -This defense is, in the view of the prosecution, completely spurious. -The use of involuntary subjects in a medical experiment is a crime, and -if it results in death it is the crime of murder. Any party to the -experiment is guilty of murder and that guilt cannot be escaped by -having a third person supply the victims. The person planning, ordering, -supporting, or executing the experiment is under a duty, both moral and -legal, to see to it that the experiment is properly performed. This duty -cannot be delegated. It is surely incumbent on the doctor performing the -experiment to satisfy himself that the subjects volunteered after having -been informed of the nature and hazards of the experiment. If they are -not volunteers, it is his duty to report to his superiors and -discontinue the experiment. These defendants have competed with each -other in feigning complete ignorance about the consent of the -experimental victims. They knew, as the evidence proves, that the -miserable inmates did not volunteer to be tortured and killed. But even -assuming the impossible, that they did not know, it is their damnation -not their exoneration. Knowledge could have been obtained by the simple -expedient of asking the subjects. The duty of inquiry could not be -clearer and cannot be avoided by such lame excuses as “I understood they -were volunteers,” or, “Himmler assured me they were volunteers.” - -In this connection, it should never be lost sight of that these -experiments were performed in concentration camps on concentration camp -inmates. However little, some of these defendants say they knew of the -lawless jungles which were concentration camps, where violent death, -torture, and starvation made up the daily life of the inmates, they at -least knew that they were places of terror where all persons opposed to -the Nazi government were imprisoned without trial, where Jews and Poles -and other so-called “racial inferiors” were incarcerated for no crime -whatever, unless their race or religion be a crime. These simple facts -were known during the war to people all over the world. How much greater -then was the duty of these defendants to determine very carefully the -voluntary character of these experimental subjects who were so -conveniently available. True it is that these defendants are not charged -with responsibility for the manifold complex of crimes which made up the -concentration camp system. But it cannot be held that they could enter -the gates of the Inferno and say in effect: “Bring forward the subjects. -I see no evil; I hear no evil; I speak no evil.” They asked no -questions. They did not inquire of the inmates as to such details as -consent, nationality, whether a trial had been held, what crime had been -committed, and the like. They did not because they knew that the -wretched inmates did not volunteer for their experiments and were not -expected to volunteer. They embraced the Nazi doctrines and the Nazi way -of life. The things these defendants did were the result of the noxious -merger of German militarism and Nazi racial objectives. When, in the -face of a critical shortage of typhus vaccines to protect the Wehrmacht -in its Eastern invasions, Handloser and his cohorts decided that animal -experimentation was too slow, the inmates of Buchenwald were sacrificed -by the hundreds to test new vaccines. When Schroeder wanted to determine -the limit of human tolerance of sea-water, he trod the path well-worn by -the Luftwaffe to Dachau and got forty gypsies. These defendants with -their eyes open used the oppressed and persecuted victims of the Nazi -regime to wring from their wretched and unwilling bodies a drop of -scientific information at a cost of death, torture, mutilation, and -permanent disability. For these palpable crimes justice demands stern -retribution. - - * * * * * - - c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR - DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_ - - * * * * * - - _Voluntary Participation_ - -Experiments on persons who offer themselves voluntarily have always been -considered admissible. In literary works care is always taken _to note -this voluntariness_; where it is not mentioned, one may conclude that it -was nonexistent. - -The interest taken in the voluntariness of the person experimented upon -has various reasons. - -First of all the compulsory experiment—in contrast to the voluntary -experiment—means an additional, very heavy mental strain, for the -experimenter since the health and life of a human being may be at stake -and the future existence of the person experimented upon may be -imperiled. - -But the experimenter has not only a purely human interest in having the -person to be experimented upon offer himself with a certain -voluntariness; in many cases he must absolutely depend on the -_cooperation of the person experimented on_; he needs truthful -information about observations made during the experiment, which cannot -otherwise be carried out properly. Compare for instance the -high-altitude and sea-water experiments. - -Finally there may exist the wish to be protected against _claims for -damages_ and to prevent the _uncovering_ of legal provisions, as well as -to guard against the possible _political odium_ that might result from -having given orders for a forced experiment. - -However, one look at the literature shows that the notion of -_voluntariness_ is _strongly suspect_, and every critical reader will in -most cases associate himself with such suspicions. - -The subjection to an experiment which is dangerous or even only painful -or temporarily onerous must be based on a special motive. - -_Ethical reasons_ alone can give rise to voluntariness strictly speaking -only in the case of the researcher himself, that is in self-experiments, -and in the case of persons who for ethical reasons consciously wish to -support by their cooperation the aims of the researcher. - - * * * * * - -However, if a declaration of voluntariness is made for reasons of -_inexperience_, _thoughtlessness_, or _distress_, then it is unethical. -Into this category fall cases where persons are induced to undergo -experiments through promise of money or other advantages, while they do -not foresee the meaning of the experiments. These are the weak, who, -unprotected, are made to serve the interests of humanity. Compare with -this the case of the use of immigrants for experiments. -(_Becker-Freyseng 60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59._) The _category_ here of -particular interest is that of _prisoners_ who offer themselves -voluntarily. - -First of all, one cannot assume that the _ethical level in a -penitentiary_ is so high above that of free men that here a great number -of prisoners would offer themselves for participation in an experiment -voluntarily only for purely ethical reasons. On the contrary, one can -say that _all prisoners_ are living under a certain _compulsion_. They -expect from their participation in the experiment an improvement of -their position or fear a worsening in case of refusal. Even though the -regulations about the treatment of prisoners may be fixed, in practice -there remains in this particular world a very wide scope for the -punishment of prisoners with measures which, as experience shows, may -hit the prisoner much more severely and more grievously than the -sentence of the judge itself. - -If the motive of the prisoner for his “voluntary offer” is merely a -general _and vague hope_, in any direction, then there is no genuine -declaration of voluntariness, but the consent is merely the off-shoot of -his condition of constraint. - -Two things have to be considered with regard to the prisoner’s -declaration of voluntary consent; the _risk_ which he undergoes and the -_advantage_ that is offered him. One can only give one’s consent to -something of which one knows the full _meaning_ and _importance_. The -prisoner must therefore have been fully informed of the possible -consequences. Here only lies the real problem of “voluntariness.” It is -not enough that the person to be experimented upon knows that, for -instance, a malaria experiment is to be made; he must also know just how -the particular person is to be used. The first easy series of -experiments cannot be compared with the daring final experiments. Who is -going to offer himself for the ultimate experiment necessary if the -other persons to be experimented on get off more lightly? What was the -nature of the consent? - -Professor Ivy as expert witness has said nothing about this problem. - -As a matter of fact a person to be experimented on can hardly estimate -the risk, and the recruiting officer will not be inclined to give a -frightful description of what may happen. Professor Ivy, who has -recruited volunteers himself, does not consider experiments to be an -evil. If you add that the “volunteer prisoner” has to forego all claims -in case of injury to his health, then the consent of the prisoner cannot -be considered as valid. - -On the other hand the prisoner must know the advantage promised him as -his _compensation_ must be in suitable relation to the severity of the -experiment and the reward must be assured to the prisoner. If the -advantage is strikingly disproportionate to the risk and given as an act -of grace without claim after the conclusion of the experiment, then -there is no voluntary experiment; it remains a forced experiment. - -Only if both basic conditions are fully met will it be possible for the -prisoner to make a free decision. He may then allow his possible death -to be included in the bargain in order to gain the chance of shortening -the time of his imprisonment by years. - -Such a case is depicted in the well known pellagra experiments, where -with the collaboration of attorneys as defense counsellors, the -conditions were agreed upon by the prison administration. (_Karl Brandt -47, Karl Brandt Ex. 54_; _Becker-Freyseng 60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59_.) - -This is the _classical case of a voluntary experiment in prison_. It -will not always be possible or necessary to fix the advantage in the -same manner; the official promise of the prison institute may be -sufficient to exclude an arbitrary denial of the promise. Examples for -that are the leprosy experiments on a person condemned to death, and the -continuous experiments in the penitentiary Bilibid. (_Becker-Freyseng -60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59._) - -These experiments must, be considered admissible as _experiments where a -chance is given_. - -The examples from medical literature, however, show that these general -conditions for voluntariness were not always fulfilled. So we refer only -to the experiments in the penitentiary San Quentin with streptococci on -25 convicts in 1946. (_Becker-Freyseng 60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59._) - -Accordingly, even experiments carried out on persons without their -consent must be considered admissible. - - _Involuntariness_ - -There are some examples of experiments carried out abroad which were -carried out as _compulsory experiments_ on prisoners _without_ their -_consent_. As an example may be mentioned the poisoning experiment -carried out in _Manila_ on 11 prisoners sentenced to death. -(_Becker-Freyseng 60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59._) The persons subjected -to experiments were executed immediately after as part of the -experiment. The _malaria experiment_ carried out on 800 prisoners has to -be mentioned too. According to an explicit statement in the press, no -advantages were granted them in return. (_Karl Brandt 1, Karl Brandt Ex. -1._) - -The method described by the witness Ivy was introduced later on as a -practice of the administration. - -It is evident that in these cases no declarations of voluntariness could -have been made because no criminal who is sentenced to death will make -himself available first for experiments _where he has no chance_, unless -there is some hope of a favor shown to him. But in the case of poisoning -experiments there was _no question of commutation of the sentence_ -because the purpose of the experiment was the study of the effect of -poison on corpses. Thus, execution was included as part of the -experiment. - -Concerning the malaria experiments the press notice explicitly said that -_no privileges of any kind_ were granted, thereby referring to the task -of the prisoners, as “social parasites”, to help fight the mosquitoes as -equal social parasites. - -One must conclude that compulsory experiments are admissible, but one -_cannot_ draw the conclusion that the state is authorized to use the -prisoners at random for any experiment whatever by way of punishment. - -_The gravity of the experiment_ must stand in a _certain proportion_ to -the gravity of the crime. The expiation must be such as can be expected. -This very idea of the reasonableness of the demand is expressed in the -malaria experiment mentioned where reference is made to the socially -negative attitude of the persons subjected to experiments, thus applying -the idea of _expiation_. - -The same fundamental idea might have led to the resolution to use -conscientious objectors for the experiments. It seems that here -_expiation_ has been demanded from the same point of view of a _socially -inimical attitude_. It does not seem unfair if a _conscientious -objector_, as a deserter, is subjected to experiments if he adopts this -attitude only in wartime and if this attitude helps him to escape behind -prison walls, thus withdrawing from dangers which the soldier at the -front has to bear for the sake of the community. For the soldier, this -danger may consist in a dangerous epidemic disease, to which he is -exposed in wartime especially. - -The idea of compulsory experiments in the sense of an experiment of -expiation has been proposed as an _expiation measure_ with regard _to -prisoners of war and political prisoners_ and has not been objected to -even by the public. So the less ethically orientated opinion of the day -frequently expresses the view that experiments on criminals should be -carried out for the purpose of expiation. - -Even in the press these opinions have their representatives. So among -others a reference appeared in the London paper “The People” of 3 March -1946 (_Karl Brandt 114_[163]) There the following is said: “People -believe that all these men (the defendants at the International Military -Tribunal) will die. It is the opinion of many that they ought to have -died months ago and ought to have been shot three days after arrest by -court-martial sentence. Others are of the opinion that they should -_expiate their crimes_ by being subjected to cancer, leprosy, and -tuberculosis experiments.” - -It is significant in this excerpt that it is a well-known English -author, Llewellyn who passes it on, and he does not adopt a disapproving -attitude to it. - -Accordingly, it can be ascertained that such experiments of expiation on -_political opponents, prisoners of war, and civilians_ can be looked -upon as _reasonable_ and admissible, if these persons, as convicted -_criminals_, are subject to _punishment_ and if the law relating to the -serving of sentences permits experiments of that kind. - -The _Geneva Convention_ in Article 46 provides for a restriction only -insofar as no punishments may be inflicted on prisoners of war apart -from those that are admissible for members of the army of one’s own -country; the same must be applied to civilians. - -In comparison with this, no restrictions exist with regard to the -execution of punishment in cases of _criminal_ offenses. Therefore the -penal execution law, admissible in each state, can be applied. - -If therefore compulsory experiments for expiation can be carried out on -an American citizen, they could be applied in the same way to a German -prisoner of war, assuming that the latter has been sentenced under penal -law. In accordance with this, the same must be admissible in the -execution of German penal law if the _foreign prisoner_ has been legally -sentenced to punishment. - -The foreign criminal is not in a better position than the subject of -one’s own country. - -The compulsory experiment must have its limits. - -Here one must distinguish between responsibility for the _arrangement of -the experiment_ and for its _conduct_. In both cases the physician can -have a share in it. The _decision for the conduct_ of experiments on -human beings can come from two sides, different in character. The demand -can result from urgency in the interests of the community and can be -vindicated by _the state_. During the war, experiments can be demanded -by the _armed forces_ in case of epidemics to be expected, such as -malaria, typhus, and the like. - -On the other hand the suggestion can come from the _research side_ -itself, which perceives a possibility of combating an evident state of -distress, through the progress of medical science, and also demands -experiments for the sake of the community. - -The decision concerning the necessity for such experiments is a -_decision of usefulness taken by the state_, consequently a _political_ -decision, signifying a balancing of expenditure and of success to be -expected or hoped for. - -There are different kinds of questions which have to be decided; first -of all there are economic questions to be solved by the competent -authorities; i. e., financial questions, supply of specialists, -laboratories and so on. - -Responsible for it are offices with means and possibilities available, -which can dispose of them according to their own judgment. These offices -are divided further according to their special interest in individual -special spheres, such as air navigation, _Wehrmacht_, and the like. - -_No decisions_ can be made by an authority _without any means at its -disposal_; this is valid for instance for the office “Science and -Research” of the defendant Karl Brandt, which fulfilled only a recording -and coordinating function within certain medical spheres. Evidently the -activity of the _Reich Research Council_ was chiefly that of an organ of -control and had to eliminate superfluous research during the war by -refusal of subsidies in order to help the small number of specialists -and material by allotment of priority ratings and financial means. This -was the task of the Reich Research Council and in the medical sphere -this part of its general regulating activity was very small. - -These offices had _no power of decision as to whether experiments on -human beings_ could be made or not, and they could not have it. The -office which regulated the _infliction of punishment_ and disposed of -human beings subjected to experiments was the only office to take -decisions. This corresponds to what is known about the conduct of -experiments on human beings abroad, where the decision was also taken by -administrative offices. - -The _authority for the infliction of punishments_, as the authoritative -office of the state, makes its _independent_ decision while _politically -balancing_ the _necessity_ for arranging experiments in the interests of -the community against what can be expected of the condemned. Applied to -German conditions during the war it means the following: - -If the condemned are under the control of the authorities of justice -competent for the execution of sentences, the responsibility rests upon -the _Reich Minister of Justice_; if the execution of sentences is -carried out by the _Reich Leader SS and the Chief of Police_ in the -concentration camps, the latter has to be responsible for it. - -In this situation _the responsibility of a physician_ can be of value -for a decision only so far as he gives a false _expert opinion_ about -the prospects of the experiment. - -The government has to make the final decision about the admissibility of -experiments on human beings; the government only has to decide whether -experiments on human beings are necessary in order to combat dangers and -injury to health, as it is responsible for everything pertaining to -health. In connection with this compare the regulation of the French -Government in 1858 for the purpose of clearing up the question -concerning the treatment of secondary syphilis and the experiments made -on human beings. (_Karl Brandt 48, Karl Brandt Ex. 55._) - -In war time, the decision is also conditioned by considerations -concerning _the preservation of the state_, which are _dependent on war -conditions_. Epidemic diseases can have a decisive influence on the -result of the war and might in the end be of a greater importance than -battles, as for instance the plague during the siege of Athens, or -typhus during the advance of Napoleon into Russia. Biological warfare is -the result and was prepared intensively by the enemies of Germany, as -the foreign press openly informed us. - -In the same way as the state demands the _death_ of its best men as -soldiers, it is entitled to order the death of the condemned in its -_battle_ against epidemics and diseases. _No antique sacrifices to gods -and demons_ are demanded any longer, only a _well considered expiation_ -as a help for the community and indeed exclusively in its interest. - -The actual _responsibility_ of the physician lies in the _conduct of the -experiment itself_. The experiment has to be conducted by the physician, -but the _political responsibility for it rests upon_ the state, while -the physician is responsible for its conduct. - -If the physician considers that an experiment is not feasible it can -become a _crime_ and the physician has to refuse to carry it out. - -In carrying out the experiment every attention must be paid to all -_regulations_ of medical practice concerning _medical research_ at the -time. - -All possible preliminary _experiments conducted on models_ have to be -made before experiments on human beings are started. That means that -preliminary experiments in laboratories, experiments on animals and so -on, have to be conducted. In case of need even experiments carried out -on the researcher’s own person belong to the preliminary experiments. - -Generally, responsibility for the _extent of the experiments_ rests upon -the physician. In the arrangement of the experiments the number of the -persons selected for experiments must be as great as necessary in the -interests of the result of the experiment, but in the interests of the -persons selected for the experiment the number must be as small as -possible. - -The conduct of the _experiment_ must be _correct_ and _excesses_ which -could increase its danger _have to be avoided_. - -Finally, the _experiment must be stopped_ by the physician if it is -evident that the expected result is attained or most probably will not -be attained. - -The _assignment of persons_ needed for an experiment in the course of -infliction of punishment can take place only at the instigation of the -executory office in whose custody the prisoner is held. - - * * * * * - -It has been pointed out that many persons used for experiments were -_foreigners_, and that this fact should have prevented experiments on -them. In this connection the following reference is made: - -It is a fact that strong resistance movements in the West, and -especially in the East, waged a total partisan war against the German -troops and caused bloody sacrifices. International law does not object -to capital punishment for participants in illegal combat and illicit -sudden attacks against members of the occupation army. If, therefore, -instead of the permissible execution of capital punishment, mitigation -through an attempt at expiation occurs, special consideration should be -given to this fact. - -The reproach that no experiments should have been made on _political -prisoners_ contradicts the fact that the political opponent, in all -countries and at all times, has in most cases been punished more -severely than the criminal, namely on the basis of criminal law -governing treason, espionage, and contravention of war measures, i. e., -political orders. Reference is hereby made to the fact that every -occupation army threatens capital punishment for many, otherwise -insignificant, offenses. - - * * * * * - - _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR - DEFENDANT RUFF_[164] - - * * * * * - - _Prisoners as voluntary experimented subjects_ - -The question has repeatedly come up in this trial whether or not the -experimental subjects in the Dachau high-altitude experiments by -Ruff-Romberg were volunteers, although the people were in _detention_, -that is to say, indisputably under duress. - -The expert Professor Dr. Leibbrandt has held to his one-sided opinion in -this respect too, and has advocated the theory that prisoners can never -be regarded as volunteers. This opinion is doubtlessly false; in other -times, the expert perhaps would not have supported it. For the -administration of justice in other cases also accepts legally binding -statements of prisoners, and does not think of declaring them legally -ineffective, only for the reason that the prisoner in consequence of his -imprisonment finds himself in an embarrassing situation, and therefore -not completely master of his own free will. - -One surely is not mistaken in supposing that none of the defendants, -even if he has ever such great experience as a medical man, at that time -thought without exception of all the possibilities which we have to -consider now, when for many months we have had to search for the legal -basis of the whole problem of human experiments, and have had to think -of all eventualities. According to his sentiment, at that time each -physician and research man said to himself: If the experimental subject -agrees to the experiment, everything is all right. For this always -appeared to the physicians to be the highest principle: An experiment is -legal if the experimental subject agrees to it, provided that the -physician observes the necessary care when performing the experiment. As -proved here by this trial, there exists in no country a written law -regulating the legal conditions of experiments on humans. On the other -side, however, the human experiment is such a far-reaching and often -such an indispensable matter that one might speak of an unwritten law, -which generally and tacitly is accepted and acknowledged by the whole -world. Counsel for some of the defendants have demonstrated to the -Tribunal in their document books the opinion of the whole world on this -unwritten law, in the most varying degrees, from the absolutely harmless -to the absolutely deadly experiment, and has certainly thereby compiled -valuable material which is suitable for forming the basis of a -codification of this unwritten medical law and to show safe future roads -for the development of justice in this sphere. Lacking a written law, -the physician and research man even today can only recognize the -conventional legal concept as a rule for his conduct as expressed in -international medical literature. - - * * * * * - -When reading this international literature, however, there cannot be any -doubt that the volunteering of the experimental subjects warrants in -every case the legality of human experiments, and that, therefore, the -more sentimental attitude of our research workers was right when, -because of their knowledge of international literature, they made the -question of the legality of human experiments depend in the first place -on the voluntariness of the experimental subjects. - -As far as one can see, international medical literature up to date -nowhere represents the opinion that the consent of a prisoner is -ineffective because, by reason of his imprisonment, he had no free will. -On the contrary, in many cases it has taken an important step forward, -and had frequently, without meeting any opposition, reported on -experiments performed on prisoners whose consent was not regarded as -essential. Many experiments, some of which were reported on here in -Court, and some of which are described in the documents submitted by the -defense, demonstrate clearly that obviously the opinion prevails -everywhere that in the case of prisoners, in particular those who have -been sentenced to death, the consent of the prisoner to the experiment -can be replaced by the permission of the authorities, even in the case -of experiments which were very dangerous and where fatalities occurred -in more or less large numbers. The published reports also talk about the -number of deaths in the experiments described, some slightly camouflaged -but to a large extent openly, without the research worker or the reader -realizing that murderous actions were being reported, because otherwise -the reaction would have been a completely different one. - -The question becomes particularly acute if these experiments were -carried out in a totalitarian state or during a total war. It is not the -point in this connection whether a dictatorial regime is desirable or -should be rejected, nor whether a war as such appears to be criminal -(for example because it will be judged as an aggressive war later on); -the attitude that, under such exceptional conditions as exist in a -dictatorship or total war, even life-endangering experiments on human -beings may perhaps be more justified than under normal conditions is -obviously based on the thought that the state governed by dictatorship -can and will ask for greater sacrifices, from criminals too, especially -during total war. - -As a matter of fact the following thought appears to have occurred to -many a defendant during this trial: During a total war the state asks -everybody to be ready at any time to serve at the front, and during the -aerial war every woman and every child at home is exposed daily and -every hour to mortal danger; many a citizen would therefore think it -unsatisfactory if a criminal, who is burdened with heavy guilt or may -even have committed a crime punishable with death, remains free from all -danger, in other words is in a better position than the upright citizen. - -It appears now that many an experimental subject who was used at that -time for experiments was of the same opinion, because the witness Karl -Wolff stated on oath that the prisoners to whom he spoke in Dachau said, -that “they would contribute voluntarily to Germany’s war effort and show -a sign of their actual good will.” (_Ruff 21, Ruff Ex. 20._) The same -ideas were also stated by various defendants during their interrogation. - - * * * * * - - d. Evidence - - _Testimony_ - Page - Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Eugen Kogon 993 - Extracts from the testimony of prosecution expert witness Dr. 994 - Andrew C. Ivy - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS - EUGEN KOGON[165] - -_DIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. MCHANEY: Before we go into the details of the typhus experiments, I -would like to ask you if you know anything about the manner in which -subjects were selected for the experiments which you have mentioned and -which took place in Buchenwald? - -WITNESS KOGON: The selection of experimental subjects was not the same -at different times. In the very first period the inmates of the camp -were called upon to volunteer. They were told that it was a harmless -affair; that the people would get additional food. After one or two -experiments it became impossible to get any volunteers whatever. From -then on, Doctor Ding asked the camp physician or the SS camp commandant -to select the suitable persons for the experiments. He had no special -directives for this. The camp administration chose people arbitrarily -from among the prisoners, whether they were criminals, or political -prisoners, or homosexuals. Intrigue among the prisoners themselves also -played a role in the selection, and occasionally people came for whom -there was no special reason, but they came into the experiments. From -the fall of 1943, approximately, the camp leaders did not want to keep -the responsibility for the selection of experimental subjects. Doctor -Ding himself no longer wished to have verbal instructions from Mrugowsky -to carry out the experiments, but he demanded written orders. For this -purpose he approached Mrugowsky with the request that the Reich Leader -SS should appoint his own people for the experiments. SS Gruppenfuehrer -Nebe of the Reich Criminal Police Office in Berlin then, according to a -directive from Himmler which I saw, ordered that only those people were -to be used who had at least a ten-year sentence to work out. Then, the -officials of the Reich Criminal Police Office in Berlin twice selected -110 and 99 people in Buchenwald, who were made available for the -experiments. They were exclusively criminals with a previous record. In -the last period, people were selected from various concentration camps -and prisons in Germany. Transports came to Buchenwald with these people. -In addition to this, political prisoners from the camp itself were -almost always included in these series of experiments, either because -they were inconvenient to the SS in some way or because they were -victims of camp intrigues. - -Q. Were all of these experimental subjects condemned to death, who were -experimented on in Block 46? - -A. I do not know of a single case in which anyone came to the -experimental station in Block 46 because he had been condemned to death. -Once in the case of four Russian prisoners of war, it was claimed that -they were to be shot, but there was no judgment, no sentence. They -belonged to the category of Russian prisoners of war, of whom about -9,500 were shot, hanged, or strangled in Buchenwald. - -Q. Were any special considerations or favors granted to the experimental -subjects who survived these experiments? - -A. During the first two or three weeks before the experiments were -carried out, the experimental subjects received better food in order to -get them into the condition of a normal German soldier. Apart from that, -none of the prisoners who survived received any advantages, and they -were never promised any such thing. - -Q. Was an effort made to pick experimental subjects who were in good -physical health, that is, comparable to a Wehrmacht soldier? - -A. The condition did exist, and as far as was compatible with the other -conditions of selection, it was fulfilled. - - * * * * * - -Q. Mr. Kogon, at the conclusion of yesterday’s session you had explained -to us the manner in which experimental subjects were selected for the -medical experiments in the Buchenwald camp. Will you tell the Tribunal -whether any non-German nationals were experimented on? - -A. Among the experimental subjects who had been selected for Block 46, -there were not only Germans but also Poles, Russians, and Frenchmen, -particularly during the last years. - -Q. Were there any prisoners of war experimented on in Block 46 to your -knowledge? - -A. Yes. - - * * * * * - - EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS - DR. ANDREW C. IVY[166] - -_CROSS-EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -DR. SERVATIUS (Attorney for defendant Karl Brandt): - -Witness, yesterday you testified that voluntary consent is the first -prerequisite for human experimentation. Previously you had said that you -yourself had been reluctant to apply for volunteers. Is that so? - -WITNESS DR. IVY: No. - -Q. Didn’t you say just now that you didn’t want to ask your students to -volunteer but left that to other agencies so that your authority might -not constitute some form of coercion? - -A. Yes, that is insofar as my personal direct request to the individual -is concerned, I thought, because of my position as a professor, it might -unduly influence the student to say yes. - -Q. You were probably of the opinion that your authority might persuade -him to do something that he otherwise would not do. - -A. Yes—through individual contact. - -Q. I say, Professor, don’t you know that in general the volunteer aspect -of the person’s consent has been under suspicion? - -A. I don’t understand that question. Will you repeat it? - -Q. Is it not so that in medical circles and also in public circles these -declarations of voluntary consent are regarded with a certain amount of -suspicion; that it is doubted whether the person actually did volunteer? - -A. Can you be more specific? - -Q. In your commission you probably debated how the volunteers should be -contacted; is that not so? - -A. Yes. - -Q. On this occasion was there no discussion of the question that you -should assure yourself that no coercion was being exercised, or that the -particular situation in which the person found himself who applied was -being exploited? - -A. Yes. I was concerned with that question. - -Q. There were discussions about that? - -A. Not necessarily with others, but there was always consideration of -that in my own mind. - -Q. Witness, a number of documents were submitted yesterday, Friday, from -which it was to be seen that volunteers did volunteer, for instance -eight hundred or more prisoners applied for a malaria experiment[167]; -and there was a radio report; all of these persons had a motive for -volunteering. What are the motives of a prisoner that persuade him to -volunteer? - -A. These prisoners said they volunteered in order to help people who -might have malaria. - -Q. In this report the individual persons were asked, five or six of them -were—one says that he volunteered because he is condemned to life -imprisonment, and he has applied to oblige the army. Another says that -he is doing it because his brother is a soldier at the front and has -malaria. And another one says—two of my brothers in the army had -malaria; and a third one says in the last war— - -MR. HARDY: Dr. Servatius refers to Document NO-3450, Prosecution Exhibit -519 for identification, and I request that he supply the passages so -that Dr. Ivy can properly testify. - -DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, from this radio report I shall read the answers -of the experimental subjects to you. One Mr. Quail says: “I expect, -Captain Jones, that these men have many reasons for their volunteering -for this war.” - - CAPTAIN JONES: “Yes, they have. Many have sons and brothers in - the armed services, others have other patriotic motives, but I - am not the one to tell about them.” - - QUALL: “I get the point.” - - CAPTAIN JONES: “With the permission of Warden Rangen we are - going to talk to several of these volunteers right now. Here is - a man who is older than some of the others. What is your name?” - - JOHNSON: “I am George Johnson, number so and so.” - - QUALL: “Johnson, I have heard you have a pretty high fever as a - result of these tests.” - - JOHNSON: “That is right; at one time my temperature was 108 - degrees.” - - QUALL: “108 degrees, and you are here to tell the story.” - - JONES: “What was your main reason for volunteering for these - tests?” - - JOHNSON: “I served in the U. S. Army during the First World War, - and here, by going through with these tests, I helped some of my - buddies in the war just ended.” - - QUALL: “Thanks, Johnson. Now, here is Charles Eirtz, number so - and so.” - - EIRTZ: “My brother was killed in the crossing of the Saar - [Sarre] River; that made up my mind for me; we weren’t being - shot at here; it was the least we could do.” - - QUALL: “And here is George Storm; George Storm, number so and - so.” - - STORM: “Two of my brothers in the service caught malaria. If I - can help the Army, I can help my brothers.” - - QUALL: “Here is a man who is one of the many inmate nurses - helping out in the war. What is your name?” - - LEOPOLD: “Nathan Leopold, number so and so. I was a malaria - volunteer, and now I am acting as a nurse.” - - QUALL: “How do most of the patients react under these tests?” - - LEOPOLD: “All the men are good soldiers; their morale is high.” - - QUALL: “Now, two inmates who are no strangers to malaria.” - - WALKER: “My name is George Walker, number so and so, and my - nephew is a malaria patient in an Army hospital.” - - MCCORMACK: “I am James McCormack, number so and so. My brother - is in the Army, too. If these tests will help cure him of - malaria, it will all be worth while.” - - QUALL: “Medical officers are particularly interested in this - next case. Your name?” - - NORMAN: “Al Norman, number so and so.” - - QUALL: “Why is your case unusual, Norman?” - - NORMAN: “Because I have had five relapses since I first - contracted malaria; that is the highest number any patient had.” - -I shall stop reading. I believe this gives the general impression. Is it -correct that all of them are giving idealistic reasons as the motive? - -MR. HARDY: Prior to the question I suggest that the document be handed -to Dr. Ivy, if he wishes to refer to other sections of it in his answer. - -DR. SERVATIUS: I shall do so immediately; however, I have one question -first. Are these not all idealistic points of view as the person’s -motive? - -WITNESS DR. IVY: Yes. On the basis of my discussions with people who -observed these experiments at Stateville, Illinois, the idealistic -motivation of this group was very high. As a matter of fact, the effect -of this public service rendered by these prisoners is being followed up -to see whether or not it has special reformative value, and up to the -present time this question indicates that this public service has been -of great reformative value, in that the incidence of return to -criminality under parole is markedly decreased. - -Q. Do you know Nathan Leopold, or do you know who he is? - -A. Yes. - -Q. Is it true that he was condemned to fifteen years in the penitentiary -for murder? - -A. To much more than that. - -Q. Do you think he is the right person to give an opinion regarding the -high morale status of the inmates of a penitentiary? - -A. He can never expect to get out of the penitentiary, and I see no -reason why he should not express himself, without any duress or -coercion, accurately and as he feels. - -Q. I will show you this report, and please ascertain if you have any -remarks to make about it. - -A. No, I have none. - -Q. The idealistic points of view are associated with the state of war, -are they not, aside from the last one? - -A. No, I do not agree, because if any coercion were brought to bear upon -these prisoners to serve in medical experiments, that would soon—within -a week—come to the attention of the newspaper reporters and would -appear on the front page of every paper—most every paper in the United -States. - -Q. I should like to tell you again what Jones says here. He says: -“Others have patriotic motives * * * many have sons and brothers in the -armed services.” Captain Jones gives that as the main reason. And then -other individuals are brought up who make statements in the same sense -to the same effect. Is that not so? - -A. I believe that is entirely reasonable; because an individual is a -prisoner in a penitentiary is no reason why he should not be patriotic -or love his country. - -Q. Perhaps you will admit that no one would give that as his motive for -helping before a German de-Nazification court, namely, that he wanted to -help the army. - -A. I did not get the question. Will you please repeat it? - -Q. Never mind. Now, Witness, of the experiments we have here, none of -these volunteers were outside the penitentiary; now, why did not persons -outside the penitentiary volunteer in the malaria experiments: -businessmen or teachers, for example? Because we must assume that not -only inmates of penitentiaries have ideals. - -A. As I explained yesterday, conscientious objectors were used, and -prisoners were used, instead of teachers and businessmen because those -individuals had no other duties to perform. Their time was fully -available for purposes of experimentation. - -Q. Is it not an evil to carry out experiments? - -A. No. - -Q. You don’t think so? - -A. It is not an evil to carry out experiments. - -Q. But isn’t it an evil to have to go through an experiment as an -experimental subject? - -A. I should say not. I have served myself as an experimental subject -many times, and I do not consider it an evil. - -Q. Don’t you think it is very unpleasant to become infected with -malaria, to have fevers, and other undesirable symptoms of that sort? - -A. Yes. It is unpleasant, but not an evil. - -Q. Perhaps we don’t understand each other. You don’t want to say it is a -pleasure to have malaria? - -A. No. It is not a pleasure. - -Q. Is it not a very unpleasant and serious disease that lasts for many -years? - -A. It is unpleasant, yes. - -Q. If all these persons apply for idealistic reasons, why are they -offered recompense? - -A. I suppose it is to serve as a small reward for the unpleasantness of -the experience. - -Q. Don’t you believe that the money was the motive for many of them—a -hundred dollars? - -A. That is rather small. From the point of view of prisoners in the -penitentiary in the United States, a hundred dollars isn’t much money. - -Q. For a prisoner that would be quite a lot of money, it seems to me, -for someone at liberty it is not so much. - -A. No. Our prisoners in the penitentiary in the United States, when they -work in factories in the prisons, receive pecuniary compensation for -that work. - -Q. I believe that is so throughout the world. - -A. That is put in a trust fund for them to use when they get out. - -Q. Do you think that the money is sufficient recompense or compensation -for what the experimental subject has to go through? - -A. I should not consider it so, and I don’t believe that any of the -prisoners did. As a matter of fact, I was told that some of them would -not accept the money. - -Q. If one declares oneself to be a volunteer, must one not weigh the -advantages against the disadvantages? - -A. I believe so. - -Q. The disadvantage here is the risk of a serious disease, the advantage -is fifty or a hundred dollars. - -A. I should say the advantage is being able to serve for the good of -humanity. - -Q. For what reason was the money not paid immediately, but in two -payments? So far as I remember from a document yesterday, the hundred -dollars was paid as follows: fifty dollars after the first month, and -the other fifty after one year. In other words, a prisoner has to do his -job first. Now, why was that so? - -A. I presume that that is just the common way of doing business in the -United States when an agreement is involved. I presume the lawyers had -something to do with that. - -Q. Was the reason not this: that the prisoner would lose his enthusiasm -for the experiment and would cease to cooperate? Could that have been -the reason for being a little circumspect in the payment? - -A. I doubt that. - -Q. Do you know of a case where the experimental subject did not wish to -continue the experiment? - -A. That has not been my experience. And according to the response that I -got to that question when I put it to Dr. Irving, he said that no one -expressed a desire to withdraw at any time. - -Q. Professor, I have seen a document on experiments in hunger that were -carried out on conscientious objectors. That appeared in a periodical. -It is described how these conscientious objectors went through -considerable unpleasantness and did not want to continue the experiment. -They kept their promise only at great effort. Is that known to you? - -MR. HARDY: I suggest that counsel refer to the document that he is -talking about at this time and make it available for Dr. Ivy, or make -the facts available, the particular data, so that Dr. Ivy will be fully -aware of the circumstances. - -PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does counsel have a document which he can make -available? Then he will use it. - -DR. SERVATIUS: I have only one copy in English here. (Presented to -witness.) I shall have to find the passage I am referring to. - -I can’t seem to find it. This is a long document and somewhere there is -the statement that the experimental subjects have to summon all their -forces to remain in the experiment. However, I shall drop the subject -for the moment. Witness, is there not another inducement that persuades -prisoners to volunteer for experiments? Is not the prospect of pardon or -other advantages the reason for applying? - -WITNESS DR. IVY: When these malaria experiments started, that prospect -was not held out to the prisoners, hence the possibility of a reduction -in sentence, in being placed on parole sooner than otherwise, was not a -prospect. However, since some of these malaria experiments have been -terminated, a reduction of sentences in addition to that allowed for -ordinary “good behavior” has been granted by the parole board. For that -reason Governor Green of the State of Illinois appointed a committee -with me as chairman to consider this question which you have in mind: -How much reduction of sentence can be allowed in such instances so that -the reduction in sentence will not be great enough to exert undue -influence or constitute duress in obtaining volunteers? I have my -conclusions ready and can read them to you, if you desire to hear them. - -Q. Please do so. May I ask when this committee was formed? - -A. The formation of the committee, according to the best of my -recollection, occurred in December 1946, when the prisoners with -indeterminate sentences were up for consideration for parole. This was -the first time the question of reduction in sentence came up. - -Q. One more question, Witness. Did the formation of this committee have -anything to do with the fact that this trial is going on, or with the -fact that this malaria case was published in Life magazine and that it -was explicitly stated that the experimental subjects were receiving no -compensation, no pardon, reduction of sentence? Is there any connection -between those things? - -A. There is no connection between the appointment of this committee and -this trial, for this reason, that there is a division of opinion -regarding the work that the parole boards do. Some believe that the -parole boards are too soft; others believe that they are too hard. If a -reduction in sentence were too great, parole boards would be criticized -in the newspapers. Obviously the parole board wants to act on the basis -of the best opinion on medical ethics that they can obtain. Accordingly, -this committee was appointed. - -Q. Would you please be so good as to read what you intended before? - -A. There are two conclusions: - - “Conclusion 1: The service of prisoners as subjects in medical - experiments should be rewarded in addition to the ordinary time - allowed for good conduct, industry, fidelity, and courage, but - the excess time rewarded should not be so great as to exert - undue influence in obtaining the consent of the prisoners. To - give an excessive reward would be contrary to the ethics of - medicine and would debase and jeopardize a method for doing - good. Thus the amount of reduction of sentence in prison should - be determined by the forbearance required by the experiment and - the character of the prisoner. It is believed that a 100 percent - increase in ordinary good time during the duration of the - experiments would not be excessive in those experiments - requiring the maximum forbearance. - - “Conclusion 2: A prisoner incapable of becoming a law-abiding - citizen should be told in advance, if he desires to serve as a - subject in a medical experiment, not to expect any reduction in - sentence. A prisoner who perpetrated an atrocious crime, even - though capable of becoming a law-abiding citizen, should be told - in advance, if he desires to serve as a subject in a medical - experiment, not to expect any drastic reduction in sentence.” - -I might explain, when I used the expression “reduction in sentence in -prison,” that that implies that when the prisoner is released on parole, -he is still under supervision, observation, or sentence outside of -prison. He is subject to arrest and return to prison at any time; so -when we say reduction of sentence in prison, we do not mean that there -is an actual reduction of sentence prescribed by the court. That is the -law in the State of Illinois. - -Q. Witness, if the experimental subjects are prisoners, are they told -about this policy ahead of time? - -A. They will obviously have to be told of this policy from now on, since -the matter has come up for the first time. - -Q. Yesterday a prosecution document was shown to you. That was Document -NO-3968, Prosecution Exhibit 517, Department of Justice, Bureau of -Prisons, a document from Texas. This was in no document book but was put -in only yesterday. I shall have this shown to you immediately. This is a -form from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, a statement of -voluntary consent and it says here the following: - - “I agree to cooperate to the fullest extent with the physicians - conducting the study during an over-all observation period of - approximately 18 months. I understand that at the conclusion of - the observation period, I am to be furnished with an appropriate - Certificate of Merit and a statement of my voluntary cooperation - in the study and the fact that I have thus rendered voluntarily - an outstanding service to humanity will be placed in my official - record.” - -Is that not a rather extensive promise which might induce a prisoner to -apply without having a purely idealistic motive? - -A. A Certificate of Merit is an attractive little certificate that the -prisoner could have framed and he could hang on the wall of his prison -cell. After he was released, he could take it home and show it to his -friends, and I think it might serve as an incentive to prevent the -previous wrongdoer from going into the ways of wrongdoing again. - -Q. Do you not think that it has a very practical usefulness? Do you not -think that it would lead the police to treat one a little more -leniently? - -A. I doubt it, although I can’t testify regarding what the police might -do. - -Q. Don’t you think that it would be of some aid when looking for a job -after his release? - -A. When a prisoner is released on parole, before he is released, a job -is found for him. - - * * * * * - -_REDIRECT EXAMINATION_ - - * * * * * - -MR. HARDY: Now, Doctor, concerning your testimony regarding the -conscientious objectors, I have a few points which may tend to clarify -this situation in the minds of defense counsel. Would you tell us how a -person is classified as a conscientious objector? - -WITNESS DR. IVY: Well, first, everyone within a certain age group in the -United States had to register. - -Q. Register for the draft? - -A. For the draft or selective service. - -Q. That is, conscription into the United States Armed Forces? - -A. Yes. Then at some time later the actual draft occurred. The -conscientious objector could announce that he was a conscientious -objector to serving in battle or serving with the military organization -at the time of registration or at the time of induction or being -drafted. - -Q. And after he registered his objections to participating in any manner -in the Army, was he then allowed to return to his home, or was he asked -to cooperate in matters which did not involve things of a military -nature? - -A. No. He was assigned to the Civilian Public Service Agency and asked -if he wanted to cooperate by rendering public service. - -Q. And that public service was work as orderly in a hospital and work in -various libraries, perhaps, and other public institutions? - -A. Yes, or forest fire prevention, and cleaning up the woods. - -Q. Was this man, this conscientious objector, in confinement? - -A. They were only placed under confinement when they would not cooperate -in any way. - -Q. Was there a national committee to take care of the interests of the -objectors? - -A. Yes. As a general rule the conscientious objectors were supervised by -a civilian religious group, such as the Quakers or the Mennonites. - -Q. Was the conscientious objector under any duty to volunteer for -medical experiments? - -A. None whatsoever. - -Q. However, he was under obligation to work in various libraries or -forest fire prevention, etc., if requested to by the committee? - -A. Yes. It was necessary for him to render some sort of public service. - -Q. Then you determined that you needed experimental subjects. How did it -happen that you decided that conscientious objectors might be made -available to you? - -A. As I recall, the National Research Council, in view of the fact that -the medical students and dental students were mustered into the Army and -could no longer serve as subjects in experiments in universities and -medical school laboratories, took the matter up with the Director of the -Civilian Public Service, who then decided that the conscientious -objectors might be allowed to volunteer for such work in connection with -medical schools and research institutes. - -Q. And by that token you were permitted to approach conscientious -objectors to ask them whether or not they would volunteer for medical -experiments? - -A. I or the investigator did not approach the conscientious objectors -directly. We requested that a certain number of volunteers be allowed or -sent to us through the Director of the Civilian Public Service Agency. - -Q. And those conscientious objectors were sent to your university -laboratories? - -A. Yes. That is correct. - -Q. While they were at your laboratory were they living in the -dormitories at the university? - -A. Yes, in the dormitories or in the hospitals. - -Q. Were they under any surveillance at all? - -A. One person in the group was appointed as a leader, supervisor of the -group, and it was his duty to see that the men carried out their -instructions properly and on time. - -Q. Was it possible for any one of these objectors to receive leave or to -have week end liberty? - -A. It was not in most experiments. - -Q. Well, assume for the moment that you were not going to use the -experimental subject for a period of two or three weeks. Was he in such -a position that he could not go on leave or go to the city or was he -supposed to remain at your university at all times? - -A. No. He could leave for certain periods of time, varying in length -from a few hours to a few days, depending upon the nature of the -experiment. If it were a dietary experiment, then he had to eat at the -diet table all the time. - -Q. Then he actually had freedom of locomotion, in contradistinction to a -prisoner in an institution or penitentiary? - -A. Yes. - - * * * * * - - * * * * * - -[Further materials from the record in the Medical Case appear in Volume -II. See Contents, p. VI, this volume.] - ------ - -[162] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July -1947, pp. 10718-10796. - -[163] Document rejected by the Tribunal. - -[164] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 1947, -pp. 11154-11176. - -[165] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7, 8 -Jan. 1947, pp. 1150-1290. - -[166] Vice President of the University of Illinois in charge of the -College of Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, and Nursing, and distinguished -professor of physiology at the Graduate School of the University of -Illinois. - -Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13, 14, -16 June 1947, pp. 9029-9324. - -[167] Counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt refers to experiments -carried out in the United States during World War II. - - - - - TRANSCRIBER NOTES - -Punctuation and spelling has been maintained except where obvious -printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for -periods. American spelling occurs throughout the document. Multiple -occurrences of the following spellings which differ and are found -throughout this volume are as follows: - - court martial court-martial - blood letting blood-letting - border line border-line - front line front-line - cross examination cross-examination - long continued long-continued - Jewish Bolshevik Jewish-Bolshevik - concentration camp concentration-camp - peace time peacetime - Fraeulein Frau - Frankfurt/Main Frankfurt-on-Main - -Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb -tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the -tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations -between the German, English, Russian and French documents presented in -the trial(s). This volume had no German, Polish, Russian or other -eastern European diacritics, only French diacritics. As a result, -Goering and Fuehrer are spelled without umlauts throughout. - -An attempt has been made to produce this ebook in a format as close as -possible to the original document's presentation and layout. - -Some illustrations were moved to facilitate page layout. - -[The end of _Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military -Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 (Oct 1946-Apr 1949) (Vol. -1)_, by Anonymous.] - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Trials of War Criminals before the -Nuernberg Military Tribunals under, by Various - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS *** - -***** This file should be named 54899-0.txt or 54899-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/4/8/9/54899/ - -Produced by Larry Harrison, Cindy Beyer, and the online -Distributed Proofreaders Canada team at -http://www.pgdpcanada.net with images provided by The -Internet Archives-US. - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |