| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 - Volume I
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 - Volume I" ***
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 this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 - Volume I" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.